Sugar Glider Ovulating

APPEAL: 3930/2000 - RESOLUTION : 191 940 - SECRETARY: SPECIAL

Santiago, 20 December, two thousand two. VIEW: Plays the sentence on appeal, which is first day of June two thousand, written on pages 547 and following, except motivations 6th, 9th, 29th, 37th, 50th and 55th, they are deleted. And, it is in place, and also this: 1 .- It should be noted that in the first infraction complaint deduced in the main on pages 13, the part of Don Patricio Fernández Ruiz-Tagle, attributed to non-compliance complaints obligations under Article 12 of Law No. 19,496, according to which, and where relevant, providers of goods and services are required to abide by the terms, conditions and modalities under which had been offered or agreed with the consumer supply of goods or service. 2 .- That, in this case, it is clear that violations found against the defendants are facts include, but are interrelated, are different in nature and occurrence. On the one hand, it expresses the complainant had purchased a van with four-wheel drive, requirement or essential feature not met one that was sold, due to a technical fault at the factory. And apart from that, based their actions by saying that having commissioned a "Harvest" at his own expense repair such failure, the aforementioned vehicle was delivered without having to correct the failure of existing factory in the drive system. 3 .- That, in the sentence to be reviewed, the defendants are found to be responsible for the violations referred to in Articles 12 and 26 Law of Consumer Protection, for which they were ordered each to pay a fine up to $ 200,000 .- 4 .- That the defendants opposed the plea of \u200b\u200bprescription of action to pursue the liability misdemeanor punishable under Article 12 of the Act, arguing that to date deducted in the lawsuit had passed within six months as from that could have committed the offense. 5 .- That, in the present case, the conduct alleged infraction, of not respecting the terms, conditions and procedures under which it has offered or agreed with the consumer delivered or the service was consummated at the same time to perfect the sale took place between the parties exist as true and not controversial history have occurred on this fact, the April 12, 1999, as stated in the invoice that is added back to square one of these cars. Accordingly, for purposes of counting the limitation period shall be referred taken into account that initial day, and, as such, we can conclude that the term expired on October 12, 1999. And, the record shows at page 13 that the charge was deducted infraction on 19 November of that year, it only remains to decide to allow the plea of \u200b\u200blimitation for misdemeanor opposed by the defendants, only in relation to the infringement found in Article 12 of Law N º 19,496 . 6 .- What, apart from this, it is the case noted that exceptionally civil action seeking the return of the purchase price paid as a consumer, in exercise of the rights referred to in its favor Articles 19 and 20 of the aforementioned legal text should be tried under Article 21 of the Act, within three months from the date you received the product, period should run from the date of the corresponding invoice or bill, and non-derogable under any circumstances, according to the clear wording of that provision. 7 .- That, as previously thought, the civil action derived in cars, aimed at achieving the return of the price that the actor Patricio Fernández Ruiz-Tagle Harvest SA paid for the vehicle to be re refi demand folio 1, amounting to $ 18,740,000 .- was filed on November 19, 1999, ie when he had spent in excess within three months referred to in Article 21 of Law N º 19,496, so that host the exception of prescription opposed by the defendants in the main on folio 86 and folio 109. 8 .- That, in respect of the other actions arising from the rights contained in these Articles, they should be exercised in the same time that the seller had given warranty, if the term shall exceed three months following the date of receipt of the product. Accordingly, the species had been established in the ruling on appeal that the seller extended the term of the guarantee granted to 24 months, the rights and actions reparations stemming from the circumstances described in subparagraphs c) and f) of Article 20 of Law N No. 19,436, asserting facts before maturity, do not deserve any legal objection, as to the chance of that action. 9 .- That, as already stated, and especially the rationale in the motivations 4, 7, 8, 18 º to 26, 28 º, 32 º to 36 º and 39 º to 41 º of the decision to be reviewed, it is possible to conclude, in agreement with the court a quo, in which the vehicle manufactured by General Motors SA, and sold the actor for Harvest SA, introduced manufacturing deficiencies and therefore lacked capacity to use in terms of moving to a system of four-wheel drive, as it was offered, feature also the provider expressly stated in product advertising. From these facts adrift in conduct that creates liability infraction and civil, which the consumer has the right to pursue to obtain compensation for material and moral damages for breach of the aforementioned legal provision, as so authorized by article 3 letter e) of Law No. 19,496, on the protection of consumer rights. 10 .- That the documentary evidence added in this instance by the General Motors Chile SA, which rola from folio 643 to folio 660, consisting of instruments private account for various repairs to the vehúculo underwent sold to the actor, weighted according to the rules of sound criticism, does not alter the conclusions regarding the facts set out in the sentence, since those documents refer only to maintenance services, overhaul and repair of the aforementioned mobile, all of which are not directly related to the manufacturing defect that pre-existed it, rooted in the drive system, credited in the manner as expressed by the motivations played in the statement. 11 .- That, likewise, the confessions made by the actor at page 667, does not contribute to distort the facts referred to the ninth basis of this ruling, consistent with the rationale for the court a quo, from those that the confessor recognized as true, positions 1, 6 and 7 of the statement on pages 666, limited to make clear that the vehicle bought the plaintiff is performed, after its acquisition, certain revisions and / or mechanical repairs, but they are referred directly to the factory default occurred from the time the engine was received from your vendor. For these reasons, and given also the provisions of Articles 32 and 35 of Law No. 18,287, is revoked, the sentence on appeal in terms of operative paragraph C rejects the objection opposite limitation on sheet 86, HARVEST SA, and the opposite at page 109, GENERAL MOTORS CHILE SA in respect of the infringement action referred to in Article 12 of Law N No. 19,496, and as L hosts by resolving claim deduction on pages 13 and following and condemnation of "commercial motor Costabal and Echeñique SA" (HARVEST) to reimburse the complainant the sum of $ 18,740,000 .-, more adjustments, and as for his A decision ordering the latter to restore order that defendant's truck car, opting instead: 1 .- To accommodate the objections of limitation for misdemeanor offense intended to punish referred to Article 12 of Law N No. 19,496, as opposed to 86 per HARVEST SA folio and folio 103, General Motors Chile SA 2 º .- To accommodate the exceptions of limitation for civil action opposed by defendants on pages 83 and 109 and accordingly reject the civil claim deduction on pages 13 and following HARVEST against SA, and secondarily against General Motors Chile SA, in the part where she is pursued by an order that those companies to refund the price paid by the plaintiff by the TA-7798 pickup truck, Chevrolet Silverado EL, 1999, amounting to $ 18,740,000 .-, upon return of that vehicle. 3 .- That is confirmed in else appealed the aforementioned decision with a statement that the fines imposed on HARVEST SA and General Motors Chile SA, for $ 200,000 .- each, in the resolutions E and F of failure is reviewed, they are applied only to have committed the offenses listed in c) and f) of Article 20 of Law N No. 19,496. To declare further that the compensation money to be ordered to pay the defendants Harvest SA, and General Motors SA, referred to in the grounds 41 and 45 degrees to the decision that is reviewed and the M of the same shall be on plus adjustments according to variations in the Consumer Price Index experienced between September 1999 and the month preceding the month in which payment is verified. Register and devuélvanse in two volumes. Drafting Attorney Mr. Robert Jacob Integrative Chocair. Deputy minister will not sign the Lord Provost, despite having attended the hearing and agreement, for being absent. No. 3930-2000. made by the Third Chamber by the Minister Mrs. Gabriela Pérez Paredes, Deputy Minister Humberto Provoste Bachmann and Attorney Mr. Robert Jacob Integrative Chocair.