The Decision 905/2024 of 24th June of Tribunal Supremo comes again around the “extra partes” bond of the contracts, when the third party involved is not a “penitus extranei” (completely alien), and does it in the same manner that the one relating real estates and defective cars.
The Supreme Court, in its analysis, refers to the jurisprudential evolution in the application of the principle of privity of contract, especially in consumer relations. The en banc decision 167/2020 of March 11 is cited to illustrate how contracts, although formally independent, can create liabilities towards third parties when it comes to guaranteeing consumer rights. In this context, it is highlighted that the absolute independence of contracts, characteristic of a past agrarian and artisanal society, has been surpassed by the complexity of current commercial and consumer relations, where mass production and advertising play a fundamental role.
The judgement notes that in cases where there is a clear link between the manufacturer and the final buyer, such as a warranty offered by the manufacturer or the product’s advertising, legal links are created that allow the consumer to hold the manufacturer accountable, even when the manufacturer has not directly intervened in the sales contract. This reasoning is applied to the present case, where Cano cannot be considered a completely unrelated third party, given that it offered a water-tightness warranty and participated in the negotiations to resolve the defects once they were detected.
The Court concludes that the contractual relationship legitimately extended to the manufacturer due to the warranty offered and Cano’s participation in the post-defect negotiations. Therefore, both Aquaro and Cano must be jointly liable for the deficiencies in the installed pool.
Consequently, the appeal by Piscinas Cano S.L. is dismissed, confirming the joint liability for manufacturing defects and the resulting contractual breach. The dismissal of the appeal also entails the imposition of costs on the appellant and the forfeiture of the deposit constituted for the filing of the remedy.