The Tango Between Art.17(3) Brussels Ibis and Art.6(4)(b) Rome I under the Beat of Package Travel Directive

Package travel tourists are explicitly protected as consumers under Article 6(4)(b) Rome I, but not under Article 17(3) Brussels Ibis since it does not even mention the term ‘package travel’. Such discrepancy is widened with the replacement of Directive 90/314 by Directive 2015/2302 with enlarged notion of package travel. As regards protecting package travel tourists as consumers with favorable jurisdiction and applicable law rules, this article argues that Article 17(3) Brussels Ibis is two steps behind Article 6(4)(b) Rome I. In order to close the gap, a uniform concept of package travel should be given. To this end, it is suggested that Article 17(3) Brussels Ibis should adopt the notion of package travel employed in Article 6(4)(b) Rome I. Despite this, these two provisions only cover packages containing transport, as an exception of transport contracts. Packages not including transport do not fall under the exception of transport contracts. Since all package travel contracts should be protected as consumer contracts, regardless of containing transport or not, it is more logical to delete the exception of transport contracts and create a separate provision to protect package travel contracts as consumer contracts.

Assessing the Cross-Market Generalization Capability of the CLAUDETTE System

We present a study aimed at testing the CLAUDETTE system’s ability to generalise the concept of unfairness in consumer contracts across diverse market sectors. The data set includes 142 terms of services grouped in five sub-sets: travel and accommodation, games and entertainment, finance and payments, health and well-being, and the more general others. Preliminary results show that the classifier has satisfying performance on all the sectors.

Unfair Terms in Standard Form Consumer Contracts

<p>This paper explores the amendments to the Fair trading Act 1986 introducing provisions preventing the use of unfair terms in standard form consumer contracts. The amendments are drafted in close line with Australian federal and state legislation addressing unfair terms. This paper outlines the provisions, identifies two key differences between the Australian and New Zealand legislation, and argues that as a result of those differences the protection will not be effective. The ultimate conclusion reached is that consumers in New Zealand are now protected from unfair terms within standard form contracts in form but not substance</p>

Unfair Terms in Standard Form Consumer Contracts

<p>This paper explores the amendments to the Fair trading Act 1986 introducing provisions preventing the use of unfair terms in standard form consumer contracts. The amendments are drafted in close line with Australian federal and state legislation addressing unfair terms. This paper outlines the provisions, identifies two key differences between the Australian and New Zealand legislation, and argues that as a result of those differences the protection will not be effective. The ultimate conclusion reached is that consumers in New Zealand are now protected from unfair terms within standard form contracts in form but not substance</p>

Qualification of Consumer Contracts for the Supply of Digital Services under Estonian Law

The EU Digital Content Directive provides for overarching regulation of the supply of digital content and services. In this light, the article presents analysis of how contracts for the supply of digital content or digital services can be qualified under Estonian law. More specific focus is placed on contracts for digital services such as storage in a cloud service or use of Web based software, because it is not entirely clear whether the underlying contracts should be considered some type of contract for use or, rather, some kind of contract for provision of services. The article examines the distinctive characteristics of particular types of contracts for use and for services, such as the possible object of the specific type of contract at issue and the main obligations of the parties, for purposes of determining whether they are suitable for the supply of digital content or digital services. This distinction is important for understanding of the directive’s relationship with national law and how existing rules function in conjunction with the rules of the directive. Also, it regulates only certain aspects of contract law, while the remainder of the contractual relationship is determined by national law – such as that pertaining to obligations of consumers and legal remedies available to traders. These rules may differ between contract types. The article’s analysis is based on comparison of Estonian and German law.

CONSUMER PROTECTION LEGISLATION AND PRIVATE INTERNATIONAL LAW

Although South African private international law is primarily based on bilateral and multilateral reference rules, the legislator in recent consumer protection legislation rather employs unilateral conflict rules by the identification of rules of immediate application and in the form of scope rules. The relevant provisions in the Electronic Communications and Transactions Act 25 of 2002, the National Credit Act 34 of 2005 and the Consumer Protection Act 68 of 2008 are discussed, together with the role that the traditional conflict rules still play. A new rule of private international law for consumer contracts is proposed; in this regard the principle of preferential treatmentwill play a role in the context of alternative reference rules.

Validity of choice of court agreements, abusive terms in air carriage contracts, assignments and compensation, is there room for anyone else? (Comments on CJEU Judgment Delayfix, c-519/19)

In Delayfix case, the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) has interpreted the formal and substantive validity of a “choice of court agreement” included in an air carriage of passenger’s contract. But, for the first time, the CJEU has openly declared the unfair nature of these choice of court agreements, not only for the passengers, but also for third parties assigned by them. In opposition with former case law on the effects of a choice of court agreement for assignees. In carriage of passengers’ contracts, third parties are usually agencies devoted to the defense of air passenger rights and collection of credits who claim for the compensation rights in accordance with the rights conferred by Regulation 261/2004. From the EU Private International Law approach, the preliminary ruling is of interest, being the Brussels I bis regulation the instrument for clarifying whether this choice of court agreement should be deemed as enforceable or not, regarding the requirements of Article 25 Brussels I bis due to these contracts are not considered as consumer contracts. To the analysis of the merits and substantive law, contrarily than under EU Private International law rules these contracts are considered as Business to consumer (B2C) contracts, and Directive 93/13/CEE and other EU Consumer rules must be applied so as to determine the unfair nature of these clauses in these contracts.

THE APPLICATION OF THE PLAIN AND UNDERSTANDABLE LANGUAGE REQUIREMENT IN TERMS OF THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT – CAN WE LEARN FROM PAST PRECEDENT?

In many instances consumers enter into contracts when buying goods or services. These contracts are extremely important as they contain the terms under which the contract is concluded. The terms may also be contained on the reverse side of a receipt or, on occasion, in a separate document which is given to them either when they conclude the contract or at a later stage. In addition to written contracts which contain terms and notices placed at business premises warning consumers of various hazards or consequences also bind consumers. However, consumers will seldom read the contractual documents that they sign and notices are also often ignored. A variety of reasons for this can be put forward; amongst others, consumers are commonly more interested in obtaining the goods rather than the consequences of the purchase. They may feel that they trust the business that they are dealing with to deal honestly, or they may simply believe that they will not be able to understand the terms and conditions, so they do not bother to read them. Van den Bergh (Readable Consumer Contracts (1985) 1) proposes that one of the reasons for the latter may be that the terms or notices are written in a manner which is unattractive and unintelligible to consumers. A possible solution to this is to try and ensure that all written material is in a format and style which is easy to read and in a language which is easy for the consumer to understand. This is the objective of plain and understandable language requirements in legislation.

6. Exemption clauses and unfair contract terms

Each Concentrate revision guide is packed with essential information, key cases, revision tips, exam Q&As, and more. Concentrates show you what to expect in a law exam, what examiners are looking for, and how to achieve extra marks. This chapter discusses the use and enforceability of exemption clauses (total exclusion or limitation of liability clauses inserted into contracts) and their legislative regulation. Whereas the regulation of such clauses is limited to the common law and UCTA 1977 in the case of commercial contracts (B2B), in the case of consumer contracts (B2C) the law intervenes to control a broader category of terms, ‘unfair contract terms’ (Consumer Rights Act 2015) with the critical test being ‘unfairness’.