Remedies for buyers in B2C
contracts: General aspects
Brussels 19 June 2012
Prof. Dr. Hans Schulte-Nölke
European Legal Studies Institute Osnabrück
CESL (= Annex I) – Overview
Part I: Introductory provisions
…
Part II: Making a binding contract
…
Part III: Assessing what is in the contract
…
Prof. Dr. Hans Schulte-Nölke, European Legal Studies Institute Osnabrück
CESL – Overview (2)
Part IV: Obligations and remedies of the parties to a sales contract
or a contract fort he supply of digital content
Ch. 9: General provisions
Ch. 10: The seller’s obligations
Ch. 11: The buyer’s remedies
Ch. 12: The buyer’s obligations
Ch. 13: The seller’s remedies
Ch. 14: Passing of risk
Part V: Obligations and remedies of the parties to a service
contract
Ch. 15: Obligations and remedies of the parties
Prof. Dr. Hans Schulte-Nölke, European Legal Studies Institute Osnabrück
CESL – Overview (3)
Part VI: Damages and interest
Ch. 16: Damages and interest
Part VII: Restitution
Ch. 17: Restitution
Part VIII: Prescription
Ch. 18: Prescription
Appendix 1: Model instructions on withdrawal
Appendix 2: Model withdrawal form
Prof. Dr. Hans Schulte-Nölke, European Legal Studies Institute Osnabrück
Integrated System of Consumer Law in CESL (Annex I)
• General contract law, e.g. applicable to any buyer (non-mandatory)
• Specific consumer protection rules (mandatory), e.g.
– Presumption that lack of conformity already existed when risk
passed (Art. 105 (2) CESL)
– Interest when debtor is a consumer (Art. 167 CESL)
• General default rules made mandatory for consumer contracts, e.g.
– Remedies for breach of information duties (Art. 29 (4) CESL)
– Buyer’s remedies for lack of conformity (Art. 108 CESL)
– Restitution (Art. 177 CESL)
– Prescription (Art. 186)
Prof. Dr. Hans Schulte-Nölke, European Legal Studies Institute Osnabrück
Level of Consumer Protection: Generally Very High
CESL
D. 44/1999/CISG/MS
Money back in case of (not insignificant) lack
of conformity, i.e no right to cure of trader
Yes (except
services)
No (hierarchy)
Payment for use in case of termination for lack
of conformity
Usually no
Usually yes [CISG ?]
Prescription/preclusion
10 (2) years
Most 2 years [CISG -]
Buyer‘s knowledge of lack of conformity harms
No
Yes
Strict liability for damages
Yes
[DE: No] CISG: yes
Prof. Dr. Hans Schulte-Nölke, European Legal Studies Institute Osnabrück
Consumer Protection Level – Benchmarks
• Consumer Rights Directive
=> same (e.g. pre-contract infomation, right to withdraw)
• Minimum Directives
=> same or higher (e.g. D. 1999/44, 93/13)
• National Laws
=> same or higher – only very few exceptions with regard
to individual MS
Prof. Dr. Hans Schulte-Nölke, European Legal Studies Institute Osnabrück
Proposals for improvement
• Overly extensive right to terminate in B2C
• Wrong exclusion of repair or replacement in case of
excuse
• Remedies for digital content not supplied in exchange
for a price, but for another counter-performance
Prof. Dr. Hans Schulte-Nölke, European Legal Studies Institute Osnabrück
Overly extensive right to terminate
• Sales contract: Consumer’s remedies not subject to cure by
seller, Art. 106 (3) (a), including:
–
–
–
–
–
Goods to be manufactured or produced, Art. 2 (k) Reg.
Goods or digital content made to consumer’s specification (cf. Art. 40
(2) (d) CESL)
Unsealed audio/video recordings and software (cf. Art. 40 (3) (c) CESL)
Digital content not supplied on a tangible medium (cf. Art. 40 (3) (d)
CESL)
Digital content in general
• Services contract: Consumer’s remedies subject to cure by
service provider, Art. 155 (3)
Prof. Dr. Hans Schulte-Nölke, European Legal Studies Institute Osnabrück
Recommendation:
Amend letter (a) in art. 106(3) CESL (added part underlined):
“If the buyer is a consumer:
(a) the buyer’s rights are not subject to cure by the seller,
except where they relate
- to goods which are made to the consumer’s specifications
or are clearly personalised, or
- to digital content; and
Prof. Dr. Hans Schulte-Nölke, European Legal Studies Institute Osnabrück
Wrong exclusion of repair or replacement in case of
excuse
Art. 106 (4) CESL should read (deletion faded):
“If the seller’s non-performance is excused, the buyer may resort to any
of the remedies referred to in Paragraph 1 except requiring performance
and damages”.
Art. 131(2) CESL relating to the remedies of the seller needs to be
amended accordingly.
Prof. Dr. Hans Schulte-Nölke, European Legal Studies Institute Osnabrück
Remedies for digital content not supplied in exchange for a
price, but for another counter-performance
Art. 107 CESL should be amended (amended part underlined):
“Limitation of remedies for digital content supplied for free
Where digital content is supplied for free*, the buyer may not resort to the remedies
referred to in points (a) to (d) of Article 106(1). The buyer may only claim damages
under point (e) of Article 106 (1) for loss or damage caused to the buyer's property,
including hardware, software and data, by the lack of conformity of the supplied digital
content, except for any gain of which the buyer has been deprived by that damage.”
* Instead of: “… is not supplied in exchange for the payment of a price…”
Prof. Dr. Hans Schulte-Nölke, European Legal Studies Institute Osnabrück
Perspective:
The ‘Blue Button’ as a quality brand for an excellent
consumer protection standard of CESL
= pre-fabricated legal guarantee
Sale under EU Law
Prof. Dr. Hans Schulte-Nölke, European Legal Studies Institute Osnabrück
Prof. Dr. Hans Schulte-Nölke
European Legal Studies Institute Osnabrück
schulte-noelke@uni-osnabrueck.de
Prof. Dr. Hans Schulte-Nölke, European Legal Studies Institute Osnabrück