Regulation of distance selling methods

<p>This paper examines New Zealand’s distance selling regulation, in particular the changes made in the course of the recent consumer law reform. First, the paper assesses the reforms with regard to telemarketing. While some criticism is expressed as to the content of the prescribed disclosure by the supplier, the approach followed is approved of in general. The paper then examines the merits of a general right of withdrawal in distance selling contracts as it exists in the European Union. Analysing withdrawal rights from an economical, psychological and ethical perspective, the paper argues that both from a supplier’s and from a consumer’s point of view, the advantages are outweighed by the disadvantages that come with withdrawal rights.</p>

Regulation of distance selling methods

<p>This paper examines New Zealand’s distance selling regulation, in particular the changes made in the course of the recent consumer law reform. First, the paper assesses the reforms with regard to telemarketing. While some criticism is expressed as to the content of the prescribed disclosure by the supplier, the approach followed is approved of in general. The paper then examines the merits of a general right of withdrawal in distance selling contracts as it exists in the European Union. Analysing withdrawal rights from an economical, psychological and ethical perspective, the paper argues that both from a supplier’s and from a consumer’s point of view, the advantages are outweighed by the disadvantages that come with withdrawal rights.</p>

An Analysis of the “Right of Termination”, “Right of Cancellation” and “Right of Withdrawal” in off-Premises and Distance Contracts According to EU Directives

Several are the European Directives dedicated to e-commerce, focussing on consumer rights, the distance marketing of consumer financial services and the protection of consumers indistance contracts.In contract law, the terms “termination”, “withdrawal”and “cancellation”have peculiar and distinct meaning. Nonetheless, they tend to be misused and applied interchangeably. This article will shed light on these relevant terms in thelight of EU Directives on the protection of consumer rights in off-premises and distance contracts.To do so, it will first present instances in which the meaningand use of these terms is either clear-cut or somehow blurred. By analysing word usage and meaning in context, it will explore how EU Directives, and EU drafters in general, made(un)ambiguous distinctions. Then, it will investigate whether English-speaking drafters (such as those of the pre-Brexit UK, Ireland and Malta) made a consistent use ofsuch terms. Finally, this paper will explore whether online conditions of sale writtenin English by non-English speaking sellers or traders (such as Italian and Polish) also make a consistent use of the terms.The paper findings highlight that the use andlegal purpose of these terms in European Directives have not been particularly consistent over the years. Furthermore, Member States’system-specificity has weighed on the meaning, application and scope of the terms. On the other hand, at EU level the absence of a unique legal system of reference and the challenges of harmonization may have created false equivalences.

Disintegration through Law

The existence of an unconditional right of withdrawal is antithetical to the idea of European integration, which is predicated on an ‘ever closer union’, and the expectation that Union rights become part of the ‘legal heritage’ of individuals. Article 50 TEU fails to take proper account of the Union’s interests, or those of Member States, individuals, and companies, and undermines the stability of treaties which international law seeks to preserve. Article 50 should be amended at the first opportunity. Leaving the jurisdiction of the Court of Justice was identified by the UK government as one of its Brexit objectives. The Court was nonetheless called upon to clarify a number of matters Article 50 left open, notably the right to revoke a withdrawal notification. While the 2020 Withdrawal Agreement preserves the Court’s material jurisdiction to interpret provisions of Union law incorporated into the Agreement, including in the context of dispute settlement procedure, individual access to the Court will be limited after the transition period.

Sale of goods made to the consumer’s specifications at a trade fair: ab initio no right of withdrawal: Case C-529/19 Möbel Kraft, EU:C:2020:846

Within the European Union, consumers concluding contracts with traders either at a distance or outside the traders’ premises are generally entitled to withdraw from the contract. However, in certain cases, enumerated in article 16 of the Consumer Rights Directive, the right of withdrawal does not apply. One of the exceptions to the right of withdrawal concerns contracts relating to the supply of goods that are made to the consumer’s specifications or that are clearly personalized. In Möbel Kraft, the ECJ decided that a trader may rely on this exception from the outset and not only after he has begun to produce the goods.

WITHDRAWAL OF A SHAREHOLDER IN THE CASE OF A REORGANISATION: EVALUATION OF EFFECTIVENESS AS A REMEDY

The article discusses the right to withdraw from a company as a method of shareholder protection in the event of reorganisation. In particular, the disadvantages of this method of protection are analysed and it is concluded that it generates significant costs and legal and economic uncertainty. It is therefore proposed that the right of withdrawal in the event of reorganisation should be abandoned unless such reorganisation results in a significant change in the company.

A propósito de la STJUE de 8 de octubre de 2020 (caso EU contra PE Digital GmbH): suministro de servicios digitales y derecho de desistimiento

The commentary that is addressed analyzes the judgment of the CJEU of 8 October 2020 (Case EU v. PE Digital GmbH) which examines several preliminary questions relating to the exercise of the right of withdrawal on a contract for the provision of digital services concluded at a distance. Thus, the work affects the question relating to the nature of the contract for the supply of digital content and digital services and analyzes whether one of the performances of the contractual object can be considered as digital content according to the definition provided by Directive 2019/770 of 20 May 2019 on certain aspects concerning contracts for the supply of digital content and digital services. The following pages also focus on the consequence that the legal nature of the contract and of one of its performances has on the exercise of the consumer's right of withdrawal provided for in Directive 2011/83 on consumer rights.