Digital Content Contracts, the Right of Withdrawal, and the Drafting of a Hong Kong Consumer Rights Ordinance

2014 ◽  
Vol 3 (1) ◽  
pp. 47-77
Author(s):  
M. Doris
Keyword(s):  
Hong Kong ◽  
Digital Content ◽  
Consumer Rights ◽  
The Right ◽  
Right Of Withdrawal

scholarly journals 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

2021 ◽  
Vol 26 (3) ◽  
pp. 14-30
Author(s):  
Rosa Barceló Compte
Keyword(s):  
Digital Content ◽  
Digital Services ◽  
Consumer Rights ◽  
Legal Nature ◽  
The Right ◽  
Right Of Withdrawal

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.

Formulation of rights and European legal discourse: any theory behind it?

2016 ◽  
Vol 1 (2) ◽  
Author(s):  
Elena Ioriatti Ferrari
Keyword(s):  
Linguistic Diversity ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Actual Structure ◽  
Multilingual Communication ◽  
Consumer Rights ◽  
Official Languages ◽  
Council Regulation ◽  
The Right ◽  
Right Of Withdrawal ◽  
The Eu

AbstractEver since the very beginning of the European Economic Community, the EU has regulated European linguistic diversity through a policy of multilingualism (Art. 217 of the E.C. Treaty and Council Regulation No 1 April 15, 1958). Within this policy, the legislator introduced the right of EU citizens to communicate with the EU institutions in each one of the official languages. The possibility of multilingual communication with the EU institutions is not only a practical solution, but a real “core” right, recognized even in the Lisbon Treaty. In this framework, it is worth providing practical solutions as well as considering whether or not, the European Union is also favoring the enactment of rights at the European level, by formulating, enforcing and even communicating the same rule to all EU citizens, with the aid of a multilingual drafting. The EU legal terminology providing rights comes into being through specific mechanisms of lexical creation, which chiefly consist of coining semantic neologisms. Moreover, all legal texts must be written in accordance with EU drafting guidelines, prescribing that “rules have to be drafted bearing in mind their translation in all the official languages”. The consequence of these drafting techniques is that multilingualism influences not only the translation, but the actual structure and content of the rule: very often the result of this praxis is a pragmatic, detailed, concrete regulation of legal instruments, rather than a system of rights. A clear example is given by the directives on consumer protection – nowadays “Directive on Consumer Rights” – and particularly the well known “right of withdrawal”; a consumer opportunity to withdraw from a contract within seven (now fourteen) days is undeniably a proper “right”. However, the regulation provided in the directives is more focused on the procedure of withdrawal (the instrument) than on the effect of the withdrawal from the contract (the right). In general, the multilingual drafting of EU norms – and consequently of EU

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

2021 ◽  
Vol 47 (1) ◽  
pp. 105-133
Author(s):  
Patrizia Giampieri
Keyword(s):  
Financial Services ◽  
European Directives ◽  
Clear Cut ◽  
Consumer Rights ◽  
English Speaking ◽  
Eu Directives ◽  
The Right ◽  
Right Of Withdrawal ◽  
Shed Light ◽  
Do So

Abstract 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.

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

2021 ◽  
pp. 1023263X2199601
Author(s):  
Reinhard Steennot
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Ab Initio ◽  
Trade Fair ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Consumer Rights ◽  
The Right ◽  
Right Of Withdrawal

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.

scholarly journals Will the imaginary active consumers please stand up? Case note to Walbusch Walter Busch: Case C-430/17 Walbusch Walter Busch GmbH & Co. KG v. Zentrale zur Bekämpfung unlauteren Wettbewerbs Frankfurt am Main eV, EU:C:2019:47

2019 ◽  
Vol 26 (5) ◽  
pp. 713-719
Author(s):  
Joasia Luzak
Keyword(s):  
Consumer Protection ◽  
Case Note ◽  
Recent Case ◽  
Frankfurt Am Main ◽  
Limited Space ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
Technological Advances ◽  
The Right ◽  
Right Of Withdrawal ◽  
The Eu

The questions posed to the Court of Justice of the EU in the recent case of Walbusch Walter Busch asked what qualifies as the means of communication with a limited space or time to display the information and how detailed the disclosure on the right of withdrawal needs to be on such a medium. The judgment in this case had to strike a balance between not limiting traders’ opportunities to use technological advances to reach consumers and one of the main objectives of consumer protection: ensuring consumers have a chance to make fully informed transactional decisions.

The average consumer is not a lawyer! Case C-66/19 JC v Kreissparkasse Saarlouis

2020 ◽  
Vol 27 (3) ◽  
pp. 379-386
Author(s):  
Peter Rott
Keyword(s):  
German Law ◽  
Withdrawal Period ◽  
Average Consumer ◽  
Legal Provisions ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
Legal Competence ◽  
The Right ◽  
Credit Law ◽  
Right Of Withdrawal ◽  
Federal Supreme

The Court of Justice had to decide on the transparency of information on the right of withdrawal in consumer credit law. Under German law, the creditor could describe the start of the withdrawal period by mere reference to a legal provision which then referred to other legal provisions which the consumer then had to interpret, which the Court of Justice considered to be lacking in transparency. In the background, there was a conflict between the referring court and the German Federal Supreme Court on the legal competence of the average consumer that the Court of Justice decided in favour of the referring court.

The Double Punch of Law and Technology: Fighting Music Piracy or Remaking Copyright in a Digital Age?

2004 ◽  
Vol 6 (2) ◽  
pp. 1-33 ◽  
Author(s):  
David Bach
Keyword(s):  
Digital Age ◽  
Digital Content ◽  
The Internet ◽  
Music Piracy ◽  
Recording Industry ◽  
Information Economy ◽  
Defense Strategy ◽  
Consumer Rights ◽  
Law And Technology ◽  
Basic Consumer

The battle between the recording industry and those illegal sharing music over the Internet has gripped headlines over the last few years like few others related to the digital age. At its core, it is a battle about the meaning of property and thus a battle over the heart of the emerging information economy. This article critically examines the double punch of law and technology – the simultaneous and interwoven deployment of legal and electronic measures to protect digital content – and asks whether it is merely a defense strategy against piracy, as the industry asserts, or rather an attempt to fundamentally redefine the producer-consumer relationship. Based on some initial evidence for the latter proposition, the article analyzes reasons for concern, outlines the current politics of copyright policymaking that have given producers the upper hand, and sketches elements of a strategy to fight music piracy that does not infringe on basic consumer rights.

scholarly journals Consumer Protection on Nonofficial Drugs Case in Indonesia: How Far the Legal Protection is?

2021 ◽  
Vol 7 (4) ◽  
pp. 459-472
Author(s):  
Chatrin Intan Sari
Keyword(s):  
Consumer Protection ◽  
Research Method ◽  
Legal Protection ◽  
Illegal Drugs ◽  
Know How ◽  
Consumer Law ◽  
Consumer Rights ◽  
The Government ◽  
The Right

The purpose of this study is to know how the legal protection for consumers on the circulation of illegal drugs and how the accountability of business actors on the circulation of illegal drugs. By using normative juridical research method this study found that the legal protection to consumers on the circulation of illegal drugs conducted by the government through the Agency of Drugs and Food. The Agency highlighted that the attention that the government has run its supervision. In addition, the protection of consumer law arising from the existence of rights and obligations set forth in Article 4 letters a and c, article 7 letters a and d, article 8 paragraph 1 letter a, d and e of Law Number 8 Year 1999 concerning Consumer Protection. The fulfilment of consumer rights over security, the right to be heard, the correct, clear, and honest information regulated in the UUPK is still not fulfilled. Article 98 paragraph 2, Article 106 paragraph 1 and 2 of Law Number 36 Year 2009 on Health. The business actor is responsible as the manufacturer of the goods because the importer of the goods is not an agent or official importer. The business actor who is an individual shall be liable for the losses incurred even if only as an importer not as a producer of the goods. 

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document