EU to ban all shop refunds

[Peter Parry]

The fact the new Directive includes no right of rejection and will remove the existing one.

[Frank Erskine]

On Tue, 03 Nov 2009 01:23:52 +0000, The Natural Philosopher had this to say:

Hear hear.

[Bob Martin]

I can't hear anything.

[Bolted]

I suggest you read it more carefully. It does no such thing.

[Bolted]

Quote from the Commission:

Much concern has been expressed about the relationship between the consumer sales remedies referred to in Article 26 and the traditional contract law remedies of the Member States, such as the right to reject in the UK and IE, the guarantee for hidden faults in France or the azione redibitoria in Italy.

It was never the intention that the full harmonisation of the specific consumer remedies in the proposal would preclude Member States from retaining their traditional contract law remedies. Full harmonisation of the existing consumer sales remedies should not exhaust the remedies for faulty goods available to the consumers on condition that the legal requirements for the exercise of these general remedies are different from those applying to the consumer sales remedies. In most Member States the consumer sales remedies coexist with the traditional contract law remedies, and the consumer may choose to use either regime. For example, in the UK and IE a consumer may decide to resort to the consumer sales remedies or to the right to reject. The requirements for the exercise of right to reject are different from those of the consumer sale remedies. The consumer does not have two years to reject a faulty product but has to do it within a reasonable time (to examine the good). Moreover, the consumer does not benefit from a reversal of the burden of proof when he exercises the right to reject. Similarly, in France, the consumer should still be able to refer to the guarantee of hidden faults. By harmonising only the consumer sales remedies the impact of full harmonisation on this topic should be rather limited and thus UK and FR consumers could retain their specific rights. Member States should however be precluded from circumventing the full harmonisation character of the proposal by amending the hierarchy of remedies provided in Article 2613 which is specific to consumer contracts. A number of Member States have expressed doubts about the practicality of such a dual regime and are willing to go further and harmonise consumer remedies for faulty goods exhaustively by including further remedies in the proposal, such as a right to reject. However, should such an exhaustive harmonisation not be achieved, a provision in the proposal could be inserted unequivocally confirming that full harmonisation of the specific consumer remedies in the proposal does not preclude Member States from retaining their traditional contract law remedies. It must also be borne in mind that the proposal will not affect the consumer's right, under national law, to enforce performance of the contract or seek damages since these issues are not covered. The proposal does not affect the consumer's freedom to seek damages or enforce performance of the contract straight away (i.e. he may decide not to use the consumer sales remedies). Article 27(2) means that the Member States are obliged to provide consumers with a right to damages for losses not remedied under the proposal. However, the conditions of the trader's liability (e.g. strict liability or culpability), and the type and amount of the damage will have to be determined under national law.

[Dave]

I fell foul of that just a little more than 12 months ago, when I had to replace our oven. It developed a minor fault within days. The oven wouldn't warm up.

Comet wouldn't replace it and insisted that their engineer came out to repair it instead.

Needless to say, I won't be passing inside their doors again and I will support an independent store in the future.

Dave

[Steve Walker]

Snipped

That sounds more promising than what was first mentioned, but it still doesn't make me entirely happy. EU rules tend to end up entirely replacing our own in this country and I'd be much happier if instead of setting rules and the commission saying that they are only changing one part of the law, they specifically wrote into the legislation that this was a set of minimum requirements and that anything that exceeded this in a specific country's law was unchanged. So many times we are told that new rules will only apply in certain circumstances and then they turn out to be applied with a very broad brush, erasing existing arrangements.

Also it was mentioned that the right to return mail order goods without reason was to go too. If this is correct, it is ridiculous, as many items cannot be properly judged until you can physically see and touch them.

SteveW

[Bolted]

Again, made-up europhobic propaganda:

"Cooling off periods (distance and pressure sales): A single EU-wide cooling off period of 14 calendar days is set down, along with rules on the beginning of the withdrawal period. The withdrawal period is extended to three months in all cases where the trader fails to provide information. An easy to use, standard withdrawal form, is also introduced. The trader must reimburse the consumer no later than 30 calendar days from the day that the consumer exercises the right of withdrawal. "

[Tony Bryer]

So, in the absence of legal rights, you don't buy them from a firm that doesn't have a no-quibble return facility. Way back in the 1960s IIRC the big mail order catalogue firms (John Moore's, Freemans etc) refunded without question, likewise M&S for shop sales, although they were not obliged to.

[Peter Parry]

Thank you for confirming what I stated. Currently the proposal as published will, under maximum harmonisation, remove the right to reject goods amongst other retrograde steps.

You also omitted the heading from the document

has no author or department named) you quoted which states at its top :-

"NB: This is work in progress. The draft does not represent the official views of the Commission."

the guarantee

It may never have been the intention but that is what was achieved despite many objections throughout the drafting process. Whether the result was due to the usual low standard of EU legal draftsmanship or other reasons is immaterial.

would preclude Member States from retaining their

That is, as was pointed out by many during the drafting process, simply nonsense.

the remedies for faulty

the exercise of these general remedies are different

If this was in English it might be comprehensible.

decide to resort

remedies. The consumer

reversal of the

harmonising only the

So a consumer sales remedy is a consumer sales remedy unless it isn't called a consumer sales remedy even though it is a consumer sales remedy? It is very kind of the EU to clarify matters and good to see the urocrats working for their bribes.

harmonisation character of the

So you can have a local law for consumer contracts but you can't make it specific to consumer contracts? If this was the intention why introduce the new legislation under the straightjacket of maximum harmonisation? If national laws were intended to remain minimum harmonisation would have been the appropriate route.

For example at the moment in the UK you have up to 6 years to seek redress for goods which are faulty ( a time set by the Limitations Act of 1980). Under the present EU proposals this would reduce to a 2 year maximum limit. Following the tortured logic of the press release you quote a consumer would be limited to a 2 year limit unless they decided to say they were not a consumer in which case they would have

6 years, but wouldn't be entitled to the protection of any consumer legislation to help their case. I can see this being really simple.

I can't imagine why.

preclude Member States from

"Could" be included, not _is_ included nor is even proposed to be included.

A slightly more credible, and undoubtedly more informed view of the proposed legislation can be found in the Joint Consultation Paper Consumer Remedies for Faulty Goods (Law Commission Consultation Paper No 188 and The Scottish Law Commission Discussion Paper No 139)

and the House of Lords European Union Committee - Eighteenth Report EU Consumer Rights Directive.