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.

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.

scholarly journals Argumentative patterns in the European Union’s directives

2017 ◽  
Vol 6 (1) ◽  
pp. 76-96 ◽  
Author(s):  
Corina Andone ◽  
Florin Coman-Kund
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Internal Market ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Member States ◽  
Normative Framework ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
Consumer Rights ◽  
Eu Directives ◽  
Academic Discussion ◽  
Do So

Abstract This paper provides an account of the arguments advanced by the European Union (EU) legislator in the preamble of directives adopted for harmonization in the internal market, and assesses them as to their potential at convincing the Member States to implement the directive at issue. We show what directives should argue for and how they do so in practice, by focussing in particular on Directive 2011/83/EU on consumer rights. Furthermore, this contribution moves beyond a purely academic discussion by linking the theoretical-normative framework advanced to the Court of Justice of the European Union’s approach to assessing the preambles of EU directives in the context of the ‘check’ on the duty to state reasons under Article 296 Treaty for the of the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU). Our analysis unveils a legislative practice in which the obligation to give reasons is not discharged adequately from an argumentative perspective, and which remains generally unsanctioned due to the rather light and flexible test used by CJEU under Article 296 TFEU.

Wading Knee-Deep into the Rubicon: Escalation and the Morality of Limited Strikes

2020 ◽  
Vol 34 (2) ◽  
pp. 161-173 ◽  
Author(s):  
Daniel R. Brunstetter
Keyword(s):  
Ethical Dilemmas ◽  
Moral Commitment ◽  
Moral Principles ◽  
Jus Ad Bellum ◽  
Point Of No Return ◽  
The Right ◽  
Shed Light ◽  
Do So ◽  
Red Line

AbstractLimited strikes are arguably different from war insofar as they are more circumscribed, less destructive, and cost less in blood and treasure to employ. However, what they can achieve is also considerably more circumscribed than what is set out by the goals of war. How do we morally evaluate limited strikes? As part of the roundtable, “The Ethics of Limited Strikes,” this essay argues that we need to turn to the ethics of limited of force, or jus ad vim, to do so. Two moral assumptions that are the keystone to jus ad vim can shed light on the moral imperatives and ethical dilemmas of undertaking limited strikes. First, such strikes should be seen as an alternative to war, and not part of the jus ad bellum last resort process. What I call the “Rubicon assessment” determines at what level force should be used: at the level of war, with all its costs and unpredictability, or at that of the more predictable and less costly limited force. Second, limited strikes should adhere to a “presumption against escalation”; that is, a moral commitment not to escalate to war. This essay highlights these moral principles in five different limited strike scenarios: “hot pursuit,” “red line,” “the last straw,” “the point of no return,” and “the right of retaliation.” The conclusion explores the notion of justice after limited strikes, or what I call jus post vim, to show that while what can be accomplished by limited strikes is inherently constrained, they can, if used morally and in tune with diplomacy, be of service in the quest for peace.

scholarly journals A Perspective on the Progress of the Theatre of Saad al-Faraj, with Emphasis on Censorship in Kuwait and the challenged Play Custom is Second Nature

2021 ◽  
pp. 1-9
Author(s):  
Ali Ali al-Anezi
Keyword(s):  
Arab World ◽  
Late Period ◽  
Second Nature ◽  
Epic Theatre ◽  
English Speaking ◽  
Two Phases ◽  
Critical Writings ◽  
Shed Light ◽  
Main Factor ◽  
Do So

This study is an examination of the life and work of the Kuwaiti dramatist Saad al-Faraj (1938 - ). al-Faraj’s name is virtually unknown in the West – particularly in the English-speaking West, although he is well known in Arab World. Only one academic study of any significance has appeared in Arabic on this eminent and fascinating dramatist, who was honoured by NCCAL and the Arab Theatre Institute at the end of his life. This study do not attempt to be comprehensive but focus on particular stages of al-Faraj’s career. This study is, therefore, the only one to attempt to see al-Faraj whole. To do so it combines an account of his life which seeks to comprehend the various forces that shaped his thinking with an analysis of one of his main dramatic work. The study concentrates on the years following the trauma inflicted on the Arab world by the catastrophe of the defeat of June 1967. Al-Faraj’s career can be divided into two phases: the immature plays of his young manhood; his late period – the ‘Epic theatre’, when his Nasrism politics were the main factor shaping his drama. The study places al-Faraj in his historical and sociocultural context and provides a brief background explaining the literary and theatrical traditions of the Arab world that influenced his activity as a dramatist. His late work is then examined in turn and his play Custom is Second Nature is analysed in accordance with the focus of the study. This means that special attention is given to the late period, but no significant work is neglected. The study aims to trace the trajectory of al-Faraj’s development using a variety of sources: the plays themselves, al-Faraj’s own journalism and critical writings, interviews with him, and his close friends and colleagues, in addition to a number of journals, books and articles, some of which contain important interviews with al-Faraj that shed light on his thought and ways of working. Conclusions will be drawn but, more importantly, questions will be raised, and it is hoped that scholars will consider this playwright and his work a subject meriting further research.

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

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.

Heinrich von Kleist and the Right to War

Romanticism ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 24 (3) ◽  
pp. 245-254
Author(s):  
Jan Mieszkowski
Keyword(s):  
Heinrich Von Kleist ◽  
The Right ◽  
Do So

This essay explores the conceptualization of warfare in Romanticism. The focus is on two plays by Heinrich von Kleist, Penthesilea and Prince Friedrich von Homburg. I begin by discussing Carl von Clausewitz's influential understanding of conflict and the problems that arise when he attempts to explain the interdependence of warring parties. I go on to argue that in Kleist's dramas war is a competition between different languages of authority. When no coherent paradigm of agency emerges from this contest, the right to wage war is revealed to be anything but a guarantee that one knows how to do so.

De splitsing van de Belgische Socialistische Partij. Twee verklarende documenten

2008 ◽  
Vol 67 (2) ◽  
pp. 99-114
Author(s):  
Pieter-Jan Van Bosstraeten
Keyword(s):  
Socialist Party ◽  
French Speaking ◽  
History Of ◽  
Post War ◽  
Shed Light ◽  
Do So

Op 11 oktober 1978 splitste de Belgische Socialistische Partij zich als laatste van de drie unitaire partijen op in twee autonome partijen. Langs Franstalige zijde werd éénzijdig de Parti Socialiste opgericht, twee jaar later volgde de Socialistische Partij. De splitsing vormde het eindpunt van een lange en bewogen geschiedenis van de socialistische eenheidspartij.Ondanks het feit dat heel wat auteurs reeds een licht hebben geworpen op de belangrijkste gebeurtenis uit de na-oorlogse geschiedenis van de BSP, is het antwoord op de vraag naar de oorzaken van de splitsing vrij eenduidig. Overwegend wordt aangenomen dat de splitsing van de BSP het gevolg is van een moeilijke samenwerking in het kader van het communautaire dossier. Andere oorzaken worden amper aangehaald, of onvoldoende verduidelijkt. Tevens wordt slechts het politiek-tactische aspect van het communautaire dossier uitvoerig besproken. In de bestaande literatuur wordt zo goed als nergens dieper ingegaan op de inhoudelijke elementen die binnen de partij problemen teweegbrachten.Onderzoek van twee cruciale documenten heeft de mogelijkheid geboden het verhaal van de splitsing beter te reconstrueren. Daarbij is gebleken dat de splitsing van de partij in een ruimer kader dient te worden geïnterpreteerd dan het communautaire dossier. Aan de splitsing van de partij ging een lang proces van autonomisering en vleugelvorming vooraf. Bovendien werd aangetoond dat de problematiek inzake het Egmont-Stuyvenbergpact niet de enige directe oorzaak vormde voor de splitsing van de partij, in de periode 1977-1978. Enkele andere oorzaken hebben daartoe eveneens bijgedragen.________The division of the Belgian Socialist Party. Two explanatory documentsOn 11 October 1978 the Belgian Socialist Party divided into two autonomous parties, the last of the three unitary parties to do so. First the French speaking section unilaterally founded the ‘Parti Socialiste’, two years later the ‘Socialistische Partij’ followed. The division constituted the termination of the long and eventful history of the socialist unitary party.In spite of the fact that many authors have already shed light on the most important event from the post-war history of the BSP, the answer to the question about the causes for the division are fairly unequivocal. The majority of opinions favour the view that the division of the BSP was the consequence of the difficulty of collaborating within the framework of the community dossier. Other causes are hardly cited, or insufficiently elucidated. Moreover only the politico-tactical aspect of the community dossier is discussed in detail. The existing literature hardly ever carries out a more thorough examination of the intrinsic elements that caused problems within the party.The investigation of the two crucial documents has offered the opportunity to provide a better reconstruction of the division. This showed that the division of the party should be interpreted within a larger framework than the community dossier alone. A long process of autonomisation and the formation of political wings preceded the division of the party. It also demonstrated that the issues concerning the Egmont-Stuyvenberg pact were not the only direct cause for the division of the party, during the period 1977-1978. There were several other causes that also contributed to this division.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document