Analysis of the judgment by the porto court of appeal regarding case no. 190/23.4T8AVR.P1: Consumer law—Purchase and sale of a defective property

Abstract

This article analyzes the judgment of the Porto Court of Appeal dated January 27, 2026, issued in Case No. 190/23.4T8AVR.P1, which examined the liability of a professional company regarding the sale of an autonomous residential unit intended for permanent housing, in which various defects were subsequently identified.

The Porto Court of Appeal found that non-conformities in the property had been proven—specifically, cracks and fissures in ceramic tiles, a damaged toilet, and a flaw in the floating flooring. However, it held that the defects in question were apparent and that, given the unit had been handed over to the buyer approximately one month prior to the execution of the deed, the buyer should have noticed them with a minimum level of diligence. Consequently, it concluded that the seller was not liable, pursuant to Article 2(3) of Decree-Law No. 67/2003 of April 8.

The decision is analyzed in light of the special legal regime governing the sale of consumer goods, the distinction between apparent and hidden defects, the burden of proof, and the principle of good faith. The article also examines the relationship between this regime and the general legal framework for the sale of defective goods set forth in Articles 913 et seq. of the Civil Code.

The analysis highlights that the solution adopted by the Porto Court of Appeal hinges on a particularly relevant issue: where it has not been proven that the buyer actually knew of the defects prior to the execution of the deed, can liability be excluded on the grounds that, under the specific circumstances, the buyer could not reasonably have been unaware of them? Answering this question requires a rigorous distinction between actual knowledge, the discoverability of the non-conformity, and the consumer's duty of diligence.