Войти
Войти как пользователь:
Войти как пользователь
Вы можете войти на сайт, если вы зарегистрированы на одном из этих сервисов:
Поиск
Твоя свобода махать руками, заканчивается там, где начинается мой нос.
 
Бернард Шоу
Поиск  Пользователи  Правила 
Закрыть
Логин:
Пароль:
Забыли свой пароль?
Регистрация
Войти
 
Страницы: 1
ИСК к Apple, Действия потребителя в условиях санкций
 
Оглавление:
--------
С уважением, адвокат Антон Лебедев
+7 (921) 320-0433
 

Петроградский районный суд Санкт-Петербурга

197198, Съезжинская ул., 9, Санкт-Петербург

Истец:

Лебедев Антон Юрьевич

«17» апреля 1979 года рождения, место рождения – гор. Ленинград,

паспорт 40 04 704074, выдан «05» декабря 2003 года

197046, ул. Чапаева, дом 11/4, квартира 158

Ответчик:

ООО «ЭППЛ РУС»

ИНН 7707767220, ОГРН 5117746070019

125009, город Москва, пер. Романов, д. 4 стр. 2, эт 6 пом II ком 54

Цена иска 200 000 рублей
От уплаты госпошлины освобожден

ИСКОВОЕ ЗАЯВЛЕНИЕ
о взыскании компенсации в связи с обманом потребителя

Начиная с 2003 года я приобрел: Apple TV 4k, 2 ноутбука MacAir, iMac, один ноутбук MacBook, Mac mini, IPad mini и телефон IPhone SE.

С марта 2022 года у меня перестали работать сервисы ApplePay, что сделало невозможным использование платных сервисов хранения iCloud, приобретение программного обеспечения в AppStore, а также медиа контента (фильмы, музыка).

Сначала я связал это с заявлением MasterCard и Visa о прекращении работы в России и перенастроил ApplePay на карту МИР банка Тинькофф. Однако с 24 марта 2022 года я заметил, что ApplePay не работает и с картой МИР.

В прессе появились заявления о том, что компания Ответчика, зарегистрированная в недружественном государстве, присоединилась к санкциям против России. После звонка к Ответчику я узнал, что они с этим ни чего делать не будут. Таким образом, Ответчик продал мне технику, а после продажи частично ограничил возможность ее использования, что по законодательству является обманом потребителя.

Обман потребителя это противоправные действия, нарушающие права потребителя, за которые виновных лиц можно привлечь к административной и гражданско-правовой ответственности (ст. 43 Закона РФ «О защите прав потребителей» от 07.02.1992 N 2300-1; ст. 14.7 КоАП РФ; ст. 15 ГК РФ).

Такое недобросовестное поведение Ответчика является злоупотреблением правом, которое само по себе лишает Ответчика защиты в силу ст. 10 ГК РФ. Более того, Ответчик является компанией из недружественного государства, с чем Истец связывает такое недобросовестное поведение Ответчика.

Компания Ответчика декларировала работу функции ApplePay при продаже устройств и возможность использования пластиковых карт для оплаты приобретаемого программного обеспечения и медиа контента. В настоящий момент компания Ответчика отключила эту функцию после продажи устройств.

Согласно ст. 14.7 КоАП РФ одним из видов обмана потребителей является введение их в заблуждение относительно потребительских свойств или качества товара (работы, услуги), то есть продажа либо передача товаров (выполнение работ, оказание услуг) с нарушением требования об указании потребительских свойств или указание недостоверных сведений о потребительских свойствах или качестве продукции.

В силу ст. 15 ГК РФ лицо, право которого нарушено, может требовать полного возмещения причиненных ему убытков, если законом или договором не предусмотрено возмещение убытков в меньшем размере. Под убытками понимаются расходы, которые лицо, чье право нарушено, произвело или должно будет произвести для восстановления нарушенного права, утрата или повреждение его имущества (реальный ущерб), а также неполученные доходы, которые это лицо получило бы при обычных условиях гражданского оборота, если бы его право не было нарушено (упущенная выгода).

Невозможность производства платежей ограничивает возможность полноценного использования всей техники.

Очевидно, что при приобретении техники я не рассчитывал, что компания Эппл, разделяя идеи укро-фашизма и Бандеры начнет причинять вред потребителям из России. Данные недобросовестные действия Ответчика причинили мне моральные и нравственные страдания.

С учетом текущих цен мной приобретено устройств не менее чем на 700 000 рублей. Полноценное использование их стало невозможным по причине отключения Ответчиком функции ApplePay. Я лишен возможности продлевать лицензии, приобретать программное обеспечение и покупать медиа контент. Фактически у всех устройств утрачена функция полноценного использования.

Закон РФ «О защите прав потребителей» не содержит условий об обязательном досудебном порядке урегулирования спора, связанного с защитой прав потребителя.

Руководствуясь ст. 15 ГК РФ, ст. 43 Закона РФ «О защите прав потребителей» от 07.02.1992 N 2300-1, ст. 14.7 КоАП РФ, а также ст. ст. 131, 132 ГПК РФ,

Прошу:

1. Взыскать с Ответчика в пользу Истца компенсацию за обман потребителя в размере 200 000 (Двести тысяч) рублей;

2. Взыскать с Ответчика в пользу Истца компенсацию морального вреда в размере 100 000 (Сто тысяч) рублей;

Приложения:

1. Скриншот учетной записи Истца;

2. Опись вложения и чек о направлении настоящего иска Ответчику;

Истец ______________ Лебедев А.Ю.

«11» апреля 2022 года.

--------
С уважением, адвокат Антон Лебедев
+7 (921) 320-0433
 
https://pgr--spb.sudrf.ru/modules.php?name=sud_delo&srv_num=1&name_op=case&c...
--------
С уважением, адвокат Антон Лебедев
+7 (921) 320-0433
 

Petrogradskiy district court of St. Petersburg

197198, Sezzhinskaya street, house 9, St. Petersburg

Plaintiff:

Lebedev Anton Yurievich

Date of birth: April 17, 1979, place of birth - Leningrad, passport 40 04 704074, issued on December 05, 2003

197046, Chapaeva street, house 11/4, flat 158

Defendant:

Apple Distribution International

Hollyhill Ln, Hollyhill Industrial Estate, Cork, T23 YK84

Phone: +353 21 428 4000

Defendant:

LLC “APPLE RUS”

INN 7707767220, OGRN 5117746070019

125009, Moscow, Romanov alley, house 4, building 2, floor 6, pr. II, office 54

Case №2-3025/2022

MOTION ON AMENDING PLAINTIFF’S CLAIMS
Terms:

TCP/IP - a set of networking protocols based on the addressing system of IP-addresses (Transmission Control Protocol (TCP) and Internet Protocol (IP)).

Content - audio, video materials and software.

AppStore - Internet shop of software sale.

iCloud - cloud storage of the user’s content provided in the volume of 5Gb free of charge, the increase of storage volume is paid.

iTunes Store - Internet shop of audio and video content sale.

AppleId - user account on the Apple site to which the devices of the Apple Company are attached.

iPad - device for working with the user’s content with closed operating system.

AppleTV - device for playing back media content from iTunes Store and Internet with closed operating system.

AppleMusic - paid media content service.

1. Devices of the Apple Company can permit the user to interact with its other devices through one device. There is integration with the use of TCP/IP protocol by means of the user account AppleId and local user accounts of the systems. Operating systems MacOS are the most user-friendly software product of Unix/Linux. It is realized due to the fact that they create single infrastructure when in use through one user account of AppleId. This account makes it possible to install purchased software in all devices when there is compatibility with the operating system from AppStore. Thus, the content purchase on one device makes it available on all compatible devices.

When Visa and MasterCard declared about their departure from Russia I registered the virtual card MIR and went on using ApplePay.

On 09.03.2022 I made the latest payment through ApplePay through the virtual card MIR. Previously I constantly used ApplePay and my taxi expenses were up to 13 000 per month. The payment system by phone permitted to go out from home only with mobile phone and resolved all money matters on foot. Moreover, I could purchase content by phone and use it on all Apple devices.

iPhone, iPad and Apple TV are closed systems and it is impossible to install other software (not from AppStore) without making modifications in the systems which will violate software license agreement.

The defendant made it impossible to purchase any content (programs, text and media materials) in AppStore and iTunesStore by its denial to accept any payments and to maintain ApplePay service. Actually the failure to maintain as well as the failure to accept any payments by plastic cards made it impossible to purchase any content for iPhone, iPad and Apple TV and MacBook. It has greatly restricted the use of purchased equipment and scientific research made by me because currently it is necessary to purchase software.

Summarizing the above, one can say that I used AppleMusic, AppStore and iTunesStore on a regular basis. I used the above both through the payment by plastic card and by means of ApplePay. Currently it is impossible. If the failure to accept payments through MasterCard and Visa can be explained by the departure of these companies from Russia the failure to accept payments of MIR system can be explained only by the defendants’ desire to discriminate consumers from Russia.

The failure to pay does not permit to load working files in iCloud, it prevents data synchronization between the devices and creates the danger of their loss, as well as creates the necessity of manual data transfer between the devices.

2. Clauses 1 and 2 article 469 of the RF Civil code provide that the seller shall deliver the product to the purchaser the quality of which complies with the terms of the sale and purchase agreement. If there are no terms on the quality of the product in the sale and purchase agreement the seller shall deliver the product to the purchaser which is suitable for the purposes for which such product is usually used. If in concluding the agreement the purchaser informed the seller on particular purposes of purchasing the product the seller shall deliver the product to the purchaser which is suitable for use according to these purposes.

In clause 39 of the decree of the Plenum of the RF Supreme Court dated June 28, 2012 № 17 “On considering civil cases by courts on disputes on protecting consumers’ rights” it is explained that the citizens’ demands to the quality of software used in technically complicated product (for example, to the operating system which serves for providing its functioning) must be considered as demands to the quality of the product as a whole taking into consideration its usability according to article 469 of the RF Civil code.

According to article 6 of the Law on protection of consumers’ rights the manufacturer shall provide possibility to use the product within its service life. For this purpose the manufacturer carries out repair and technical maintenance of the product, as well as issue and delivery of spare parts to trade and repair organizations to the extent and in the range which are necessary for repair and technical maintenance within the period of the product manufacture and after taking it out of production within the product’s service life, and in the absence of such period within ten years after the date of delivering such product to the consumer.

In virtue of clause 1 article 13 of the Law on protection of consumers’ rights for violating consumers’ rights the manufacturer (contractor, seller, authorized organization or authorized individual entrepreneur, importer) shall bear responsibility specified by law or agreement.

As it follows from the conclusion drawn by the Judicial panel on civil cases of the RF Supreme court in the Ruling dated December 15, 2020 on case № 46-КГ20-19-К6 the analysis of the above legal rules and the act of their interpretation permits to draw a conclusion that the quality product is such product which can be used during its service life according to particular purposes for which it was purchased, in particular, the software operating capacity used in technically complicated product must be guaranteed.

In virtue of clause 2 article 4 of the RF Law “On protection of consumers’ rights”, if there are no terms in the agreement on quality of the product (work, service) the seller (contractor) shall deliver the product (execute work, render service) to the consumer which complies with imposed requirements and suitable for purposes for which such product (work, service) is usually used.

Currently the devices purchased by the Plaintiff from the Defendants do not comply with the requirements and are not suitable for purposes for which such devices are usually used upon reasons referred to above, in other words, there is a violation of the Plaintiff’s rights specified by article 4 of the RF Law “On protection of consumers’ rights”.

3. In virtue of conclusions of the Judicial panel on civil cases of the RF Supreme court drawn in the Ruling dated December 15, 2020 on case № 46-КГ20-19-К6 because it is not possible to remedy the appeared defect of the Plaintiff’s devices such defect is considered to be irremediable and on the basis of analogy (article 6 of the RF Civil code) clause 6 article 19 of this Law shall be applied as the results of violating the requirements of article 6 of the Law on protection of consumers’ rights. Clause 6 article 19 of the Law on protection of consumers’ rights provides that in case of revealing significant defects of the product the consumer can make demand to the manufacturer (authorized organization or authorized individual entrepreneur, importer) on free remedy of such defects if he proves that they took place before the delivery of the product to the consumer or by the reasons appeared before. The above demand can be made if the product’s defects are revealed upon expiry of two years after the date of delivery of the product to the consumer within the service life of the product or within ten years after the date of delivery of the product to the consumer in case of failure to determine the service life.

If the above demand was not satisfied within twenty days after the date of its making by the consumer or the defect of the product revealed by him is irremediable the consumer at his discretion can make other demands to the manufacturer (authorized organization or authorized individual entrepreneur, importer), specified by clause 3 article 18 of the above Law or return the product to the manufacturer (authorized organization or authorized individual entrepreneur, importer) and demand refund of paid amount.

Applying the above rule on the basis of analogy, taking into account provisions of article 6 of the Law on protection of consumers’ rights, the court shall establish the following circumstances as legally significant: if the possibility to use products within 10 years after the date of delivery of the products to the consumer was absent in connection with failure to provide technical maintenance of products and if the defects appeared within the above period. Moreover, it is not required to establish the circumstance that the defect has appeared before the delivery of the product to the consumer.

4. In virtue of clause 45 of the decree of the Plenum of the RF Supreme Court dated June 28, 2012 № 17 “On considering civil cases by courts on disputes on protecting consumers’ rights”, when the court resolves the issue of damages for moral injury to the consumer the established fact of violating the consumer’s rights is a sufficient condition for satisfying the claim.

The amount of damages for moral injury is defined by the court irrespective of the amount of property damage recovery, in this connection the amount of pecuniary compensation recovered in satisfaction of moral injury cannot be made conditional on the value of the product (work, service) or the amount of forfeit to be recovered. The amount of damages for moral injury awarded to the consumer in each particular case must be defined by the court taking into account the nature of emotional and bodily sufferings inflicted to the consumer, proceeding from the principle of reasonableness and justice.

Thus, the presence of emotional sufferings in violating the consumer’s rights is presumed by law and any additional proofs confirming the infliction of moral damage are not required.

Using the right provided by article 39 of the RF Civil procedure code the Plaintiff amends plaintiff’s claims: the Plaintiff considers it necessary to compel the Defendant to restore the function of accepting payments.

Based on article 15 of the RF CC, article 4, article 13, article 15, article 43 of the RF Law “On protection of consumers’ rights” dated 07.02.1992 N 2300-1, article 14.7 of the RF Code on administrative offences and articles 131, 132 of the RF Civil procedure code,

REQUEST:

1. To award damages from each Defendant in the Plaintiff’s favour for violating consumer’s rights in the amount of 200 000 (Two hundred thousand) rubles;

2. To award damages from each Defendant in the Plaintiff’s favour for moral injury in the amount of 100 000 (One hundred thousand) rubles;

Annexes:

1. Serial number iMac;

2. Serial number iPad mini;

3. Serial number MacAir 11;

4. Serial number MacAir 13;

5. Serial number MacBook;

6. Serial number iPhone SE;

7. Serial number Apple TV;

8. Confirmation of payment through ApplePay;

9. Copy of the data on submitting to the representative of LLC “APPLE RUS”

Plaintiff ______________ Lebedev A.Y.

July 15, 2022

--------
С уважением, адвокат Антон Лебедев
+7 (921) 320-0433
Страницы: 1
Читают тему (гостей: 1)