The store attributed the defect of branded sneakers to the "wrong size," but the court sided with the buyer

The Shakhtarsk City Court of the Dnipropetrovsk region considered a civil case filed by a buyer against an individual entrepreneur for consumer rights protection due to the seller's refusal to exchange shoes in which a manufacturing defect was found.

The court examined whether the presence of a manufacturing defect in the product was confirmed, whether the seller complied with the legislation requirements regarding the quality examination of the product, and whether there were grounds to oblige the exchange of the product, compensation for moral damages, and court costs.

Essence of the dispute

The plaintiff filed a lawsuit for consumer rights protection, requesting the individual entrepreneur to exchange the purchased sneakers of inadequate quality for a similar product of proper quality or another equivalent product with the corresponding functional purpose, to recover moral damages in the amount of 1 hryvnia, expenses for conducting an expert examination amounting to 2,721.60 UAH, as well as costs for professional legal assistance.

The court established that the plaintiff purchased sneakers at the "ROY ROBSON" store. The shoes were bought during the promotional offer "1+1=3," as a result of which their price on the fiscal receipt was 1 hryvnia, while the discount amount was 10,998 UAH.

On the first day of use, the buyer discovered a manufacturing defect on the right half-pair of the shoes in the form of an area without nap on the textile fabric insert of the upper parts.

On December 1, 2025, he contacted the seller demanding an exchange of the product of inadequate quality but received a refusal, which the store administrator sent via the Telegram messenger.

In response to the lawyer's inquiry, the plaintiff's representative was informed that signs of use were found during the inspection of the shoes, including sole contamination and deformation. The seller concluded there was no significant defect, stating that the damage occurred due to use and possibly incorrect shoe size selection. Additionally, the defendant noted that the sales consultant recommended the buyer choose a larger size, but the buyer independently purchased size 41 shoes. On this basis, the defendant refused to refund or exchange the product.

Disagreeing with this position, the plaintiff applied to the Dnipropetrovsk Chamber of Commerce and Industry for an expert examination.

The expert conclusion No. GO-129 dated February 10, 2026, established that the right half-pair of sneakers had a manufacturing defect in the upper parts in the form of an area without nap on the textile insert. The cause of the defect was determined to be the poor quality of the fabric used for the upper parts. No mechanical damage that could cause such a defect was found during the examination.

Opposing the claim, the defendant stated that the plaintiff did not prove the presence of a manufacturing defect or a significant product flaw, and the detected damages were of an operational nature and could have arisen due to incorrect shoe size selection. The defendant also indicated that the law does not provide grounds for product exchange or refund.

Position and conclusions of the court

After reviewing case materials No. 186/923/26, the court first cited provisions of the Constitution of Ukraine, the Civil Code of Ukraine, and the Law of Ukraine "On Consumer Rights Protection," which guarantee the consumer's right to receive goods of proper quality and judicial protection in case of rights violations.

The court noted that according to Articles 673 and 675 of the Civil Code of Ukraine, Articles 6 and 8 of the Law of Ukraine "On Consumer Rights Protection," the seller is obliged to deliver goods of proper quality that meet the terms of the sales contract, and in case a significant defect arises during the warranty period due to the manufacturer’s or seller’s fault, the consumer has the right to demand, among other things, replacement with a similar product.

At the same time, the court emphasized that the burden of proving the presence of a significant defect lies with the consumer, while the burden of proving the reasons for such defect lies with the seller.

Evaluating the evidence provided by the parties, the court found that the plaintiff confirmed the presence of a manufacturing defect with the expert conclusion of the Dnipropetrovsk Chamber of Commerce and Industry No. GO-129 dated February 10, 2026. According to this conclusion, the right half-pair of sneakers had a manufacturing defect in the upper parts in the form of an area without nap on the textile insert, caused by the use of poor-quality fabric. At the same time, no mechanical damage that could cause such a defect was found during the examination.

Meanwhile, the defendant did not provide proper and admissible evidence that the detected defect arose due to the plaintiff’s violation of shoe usage rules or other reasons for which the seller is not responsible.

The court separately emphasized that according to the second paragraph of part two of Article 17 of the Law of Ukraine "On Consumer Rights Protection," the seller is obliged, if necessary to establish the reasons for the loss of product quality, to organize an examination at their own expense within three days. However, the defendant did not fulfill this obligation and limited himself to a visual inspection of the product, based on which he concluded the absence of a significant defect.

In the court’s opinion, such an assessment cannot be considered proper evidence of the reasons for the defect, since conducting an examination in cases provided by law is the seller’s duty.

The court also noted that the defendant did not refute the expert examination conclusions provided by the plaintiff and did not prove that the defect appeared after the product was handed over to the buyer due to improper use.

Considering the established circumstances, the court concluded that the sneakers purchased by the plaintiff had a manufacturing defect, and therefore the plaintiff, as a consumer, acquired the right to demand their replacement with a similar product of proper quality. The court noted that this method of protection was chosen by the plaintiff, while there were no grounds for terminating the sales contract or recovering the product’s cost, especially considering that the shoes were purchased under a promotional offer.

When assessing the claim for moral damages, the court proceeded from the fact that the plaintiff was forced to repeatedly contact the seller, organize an expert examination, and spend personal time and effort defending his rights. In addition, due to the defect, he was deprived of the opportunity to use winter shoes for their intended purpose during the relevant season.

Taking into account the nature of the violation, principles of reasonableness and fairness, the court recognized the claim for moral damages in the amount of 1 UAH as justified.

At the same time, the court satisfied the claim for recovery of expert examination costs amounting to 2,721.60 UAH from the defendant, as these were documented and directly related to the protection of the violated consumer rights.

However, the court denied the claim for recovery of professional legal assistance costs amounting to 10,000 UAH. The court noted that the plaintiff did not provide proper evidence of actually incurring these expenses, including a detailed calculation, an acceptance certificate of the provided services, and a description of the lawyer’s work performed, which excludes the possibility of compensation.

As a result of the case consideration, the court partially satisfied the claim. The court obliged the individual entrepreneur to exchange the defective sneakers for a similar product of proper quality or another equivalent product with the corresponding functional purpose, recovered 1 UAH in moral damages and 2,721.60 UAH for expert examination costs in favor of the plaintiff, as well as court fees in favor of the state. The rest of the claims, including compensation for professional legal assistance costs, were denied.

Subscribe to our Telegram channel t.me/sudua and to Google News SUD.UA, as well as to our VIBER and WhatsApp, our page on Facebook and on Instagram to stay updated on the most important events.