The European Court has on a template of a German Court even made a decision that now haunts many blogs, newsletters, and essays. Somewhat simplified, the Court of Justice (Judgement of 03.09.2009, Case C-489/07) a template of a German court on the question of whether it is compatible with a European directive, the consumer of the withdrawal of a distance business in returning the goods for compensation decided to enforce. The European Court has answered the question with the half-full and half empty water glass. So far, only the half-empty water glass to read the disaster for the online retailer, which result from this decision is. The "shock of the transit trade," which propagated after the decision in part is likely, however, be rather mild. Taking the "half-full glass of water" of the decision, then the decision is to be understood that compensation can be made still vorgeltend when the consumer gets a wide distance contract and returning the goods. Compensation is not only if it out of proportion the purchase price is or if the compensation for the use or test or the real property is up to the date of withdrawal. This means that a mere, the standard compensation is not for the possession of the goods by the revocation may be invoked. The latter is just my opinion, nothing new. Who returns a packaged product, which he did not use, also according to previous legal no compensation payable for the use.
But it should be a point of contention. Paid by the consumer for the proper utilization and effective use of acquisition until the date of cancellation, no compensation for the use? Over here can be determined by the decision of the ECJ in fact make no final assessment. The Court said that compensation (among others) according to the principles of unjust enrichment is worth serious consideration. In my view, this applies to the case that the consumer goods not only takes into use as intended, but also uses, and then revoke his contract. In any case, this would apply if the consumer goods even after the withdrawal uses, which must prove, however, the mail order company. Pending clarification of the mail order company should go, however, in its cancellation on "safe". I think that in a revocation be taken at the time each case that the intended putting into use of not to pay compensation out. As to whether the intended use after putting out on compensation, judicial or legislative decisions will have to wait.
it is hoped, however, that the legislature has better things to do.
For most mail order companies, the decision is also likely why change anything in practice, because very few have called for the withdrawal of a small compensation amount from the consumer. I am certainly not one known case in which a properly exercised would withdraw within two weeks or a month of mail order companies charge such compensation or asserted. For sales on Ebay and, if Amazon or similar sales platforms such compensation was intended for the putting out of the question anyway.
0 comments:
Post a Comment