The EU commission ensures that that consumer laws are harmonised at EU level through introducing various important EU legislative initiatives whilst letting national authorities some legislative rights to advise on consumer issues.
In order to reduce negotiation and learning costs, harmonised law in relation to cross-border transactions in B2C sales is desirable. Also, different contract laws may become costly on a B2B level and on a B2C level which may lead to competition. If the parties to a contract are settled in different member states then they have to negotiate which countries national law will govern their transaction. Whereas the CRD must be adopted by EU member states, the Commission's proposal for a Common European Sales Law (CESL) which applies to consumer transactions is an optional legal instrument and Member states may choose to incorporate it into their national laws. The CESL covers business B2C contracts and B2B contracts and was adopted by the European Commission in October 2011. Businesses in the EU Member states may choose for the set of rules stated in the CESL to “co-exist” with their national laws for B2C contracts. BEUC is not in favour of such an optional instrument as it is an inappropriate tool for regulating consumer contract law.
icter protection is afforded in favour of the consumer rather than the business who runs the online web-shop i.e. the seller, which leaves the latter in a risky position. E-commerce consumer protection laws exist because consumers who buy “in the dark” have little knowledge about the products end-result until it is delivered to their homes. Thus, in order to protect the consumer, there exists an obligation on the web-shop to provide the consumer with the possibility to cancel the contract in the event that the purchaser decides to exercise their right to return the item. As a result, the web-shop who has contracted with the customer has to fill in an “empty seat” and accept the cancelled good.
Increasing Consumer confidence
A view by Dr Rott is that distance selling is advantageous for both parties since the consumer does not have to travel and saves money whereas the trader will save money by not having to maintain a shop. Further, the consumer will be able to test the goods before being bound to the contract, yet the downside is that they bear the costs for returning the goods to the seller. On the other hand the seller usually has to take the risk that where the goods are damaged or lost in transport, he will have to bear the loss for refunding the consumer. Where the seller is transporting the goods to the consumer, the seller is also liable for any damage to the goods during delivery, provided that he has not insured against any perils with the manufacturer or carrier of the goods.
Thus, the Court of Justice of the European Union has concluded “that it is settled case-law that derogations from the rules of European Union law for the protection of consumers must be interpreted strictly.” EU member states sellers are required to guarantee that the goods that they provide are in conformity with the contract of sale for a period two years after their delivery. If the goods do not conform to the contract of sale then the consumers can ask for the goods to be repaired, replaced, and reduced in price or for the contract to be rescinded.
Comentarios