Specific rules applicable to Consumer Sales

5.1 Types of contracts to be covered

The Directive on Consumer Sales applies to sales contracts. It does not apply to any other type of contract involving the supply of goods, except for goods to be manufactured in the future. Therefore a consumer who hires a car is not protected by its provisions. Likewise, as the supply of digital content is not covered by the Directive, a consumer who downloads music from the Internet is not protected either. This is a potential consumer protection lacuna. If the horizontal instrument were to cover these types of contracts, consumers would enjoy the same protection against lack of conformity regardless of the legal nature of the contract.

The lack of coverage of contracts for the supply of software and data (so called “contracts providing digital content”) is a particularly important problem. With the increase in digital content consumption, questions of liability (e.g. when software damages hardware) and guarantee from defects will grow in importance. Several consumer complaints point, for instance, to problems with music downloaded from the internet or used in MP3 players, software and digital content to be used in mobile phones (e.g. ring tones). An extension of the coverage of consumer protection rules to such situations would allow consumers to make use of remedies for non-conformity and obtain damages. Such an extension of the scope of the Directive may, however, require specific rules since digital content is usually licensed rather than sold to the consumers.

Въпрос З1: Трябва ли правилата за продажбите на потребителски стоки да покриват допълнителни типове договори, по които на потребителите се доставят стоки или услуги с цифрово съдържание? Възможност 1: Запазване на статуквото: т.е. обхватът на приложението се ограничава до продажбата на потребителски стоки, единствено с изключение на още непроизведени стоки. Възможност 2: Обхватът да се разшири и за други типове договори, по които на потребителите се доставят стоки (напр. автомобили под наем). Възможност 3: Обхватът да се разшири и за други типове договори, по които на потребителите се доставят стоки или услуги с цифрово съдържание(напр. музика от Интернет). Възможност 4: Комбинация от възможност 2 и 3

Under Article 1 (3) of the Directive, Member States may provide that the definition of consumer goods does not cover “second-hand goods sold at public auctions where the consumer has the opportunity to attend the sale in person”. This exemption is a source of uncertainty both for businesses and consumers. A horizontal instrument could define the notion of “public auctions” in order to remove this uncertainty; having said this it may be necessary to follow a specific and different approach for on-line auction.

Въпрос З2: Трябва ли правилата за потребителските продажби да се прилагат относно употребявани стоки, продавани на публични разпродажби? Възможност 1: Да. Възможност 2: Не, те да бъдат изключени от обхвата на правилата на Общността.

According to a recent Eurobarometer survey, 66 % of consumers perceive that delivery in the context of cross-border sales may cause more problems than for domestic sales. Adding rules on delivery should increase legal certainty and thereby consumer confidence.

The Directive on Sale of Consumer Goods provides that the seller must deliver goods which are in conformity with the sales contract. However, it does not define the notion of delivery. This is unfortunate, since the moment of delivery is the starting point for time limits for the exercise of fundamental consumer rights, e.g. remedies for non-conformity. The concept of delivery is also important for the passing of the risk²⁸.

The Directive does not provide for remedies against lack of delivery, late or partial delivery. Regulating such questions in the horizontal instrument would require a definition of delivery.

The horizontal instrument could clarify whether delivery means that the consumer has materially received the goods (i.e. the consumer has acquired physical possession of the good, for example by collecting the ordered car from the dealer) or whether it is sufficient that the goods are put at the consumer’s disposal (e.g. the dealer informs the consumer that the ordered car has arrived at his garage and is ready to be picked up). The horizontal instrument could also provide that, as a default rule, delivery takes place when the consumer acquires physical possession of the good. The parties would remain free to agree otherwise.

Въпрос И1: Каква да бъде дефиницията за доставка? Възможност 1: Доставка да означава, че потребителят фактически получава стоката (напр. стоките се предават на потребителя). Възможност 2: Доставка да означава, че стоките са предоставени на разположение на потребителя на мястото и датата, посочени в договора. Възможност 3: Доставка по подразбиране да означава, че потребителят влиза във фактическо владение на стоките, но страните могат да се договорят и за друго. Възможност 4: Запазване на статуквото: да не се определя срок на доставката.

An issue connected to the definition of delivery is whether the horizontal instrument should regulate the passing of risk in consumer sales, i.e. the question of the point at which the professional bears the risk and the cost of any deterioration or destruction of the good and when this risk passes to the consumer, e.g. in a situation where a good is damaged or destroyed while in transit from the seller to the consumer. At the moment, the issue is regulated differently in the Member States. In some Member States the risk passes to the buyer at the time of the conclusion of the contract while in others property does not pass with the conclusion of the sales contract but with the delivery.

The passing of the risk could be linked to the moment of delivery. Depending on the definition of delivery, this could be at the time when the consumer acquires physical possession of the good or at an earlier stage.

Въпрос И2: Как трябва да се регулира прехвърлянето на риска при потребителските продажби? Възможност 1: Прехвърлянето на риска да се регулира на общностно ниво и да се обвърже с момента на доставката. Възможност 2: Запазване на статуквото: прехвърлянето на риска да се регулира от самите държави-членки, в резултат на което ще се получат разнопосочни решения.

5.5.1 Introduction

The duty of the seller to deliver goods in conformity with the contract is the cornerstone of the Directive on Consumer Sales. The Directive establishes a presumption that goods are in conformity with the contract if they fulfil a series of conditions which are considered to be implied by the contract (e.g. that the goods are fit for the purposes for which goods of the same type are normally used).

5.5.2 Extension of time limits

Under the directive, the seller is liable for any lack of conformity which existed at the time of delivery and becomes apparent within two years from that moment (legal guarantee). The Directive does not regulate the suspension or interruption of the two-year period in the event of repair, replacement or negotiations between seller and consumer. Some Member States have introduced specific rules on the extension of the period during which the seller is liable while the seller is trying to cure the defect, whereas others have not introduced such rules. This has led to significant divergences among national laws impeding cross border trade. A horizontal instrument could provide that the duration of the legal guarantee is extended for a period corresponding to the time during which the consumer was not able to use the goods because some remedy was being performed.

Въпрос Й1: Трябва ли хоризонталният инструмент да разшири сроковете, приложими към липсата на съответствие така, че да включва периода за изпълнение на средствата за правна защита? Възможност 1: Запазване на статуквото: не се правят промени. Възможност 2: Да. Хоризонталният инструмент да определи срока на правната гаранция да се удължи с периода, през който потребителят не е в състояние да ползва стоките поради прилагането на средства за правна защита

It may happen that defects which became apparent within two years from delivery re-appear after the expiry of the legal guarantee, even though they have been repaired. In these cases, consumers are left with goods which were already defective at the moment of delivery, but for which any further repair is at the expense of the consumers. Some Member States have introduced specific rules to deal with recurring defects.

A horizontal instrument could provide that when the seller repairs the goods during the period of the legal guarantee, the guarantee is automatically extended to cover any future re-emergence of the same defect for a period to be specified since repair. The issue of recurring defects could also be relevant in the context of remedies, possibly justifying a consumer’s claim for replacement instead of another repair.

Въпрос Й2: Трябва ли гаранцията да се удължи автоматично в случай на ремонт за отстраняване на повторно възникнали дефекти? Възможност 1: Запазване на статуквото: гаранцията не се удължава. Възможност 2: Срокът на законната гаранция да се удължи с период, определен след ремонта, така че да включи бъдещо възникване на същия дефект.

Member States may currently provide that, in case of second-hand goods, the seller and the consumer may agree on a shorter time period for the liability of the seller, provided this period is not less than one year. Varying conditions in different Member States cause legal uncertainty.

This could be corrected by eliminating the possibility for the seller and the consumer to agree on a shorter time period of liability. This should not create any disproportionate burden on professionals since they would only remain responsible for those defects which already existed at the moment of delivery²⁹.

Another option could be to allow professionals and consumers throughout Europe to agree on a shorter period for the seller’s liability for lack of conformity.

Въпрос Й3: Трябва ли да съществуват специфични правила за употребявани стоки? Възможност 1: Хоризонталният инструмент да не включва текстове за нарушени права при употребявани стоки: продавачът и потребителят няма да могат да се споразумеят за по-малък срок на отговорност за дефекти при употребявани стоки. Възможност 2: Хоризонталният инструмент да съдържа специфични правила за употребявани стоки: продавачът и потребителят да могат да се споразумеят за по-малък срок на отговорност за дефекти при употребявани стоки (но не по-малък от една година).

The Directive establishes a rebuttable presumption that any lack of conformity which becomes apparent within six months from delivery shall be presumed to have existed at the time of delivery. However, such presumption does not apply when it is incompatible with the nature of the goods or the nature of the lack of conformity.

The Commission has been informed that it is difficult to apply a system with a rebuttable presumption that can only be used when it is compatible with the nature of the goods and the defects. Once the six-month period has passed, consumers have to prove a fact (the existence of the defect at the time of delivery) which is extremely difficult to establish without access to relevant technical data and/or specialised assistance. Even during the first six months it is in each case necessary to examine whether the consumer can actually invoke the presumption and obtain the reversal of the burden of proof. This way the reversal of the burden of proof serves de facto as a limitation of the legal guarantee³⁰.

The Commission wonders if the present regime should not be changed. A horizontal instrument could provide that the professional would have to prove that the defects did not exist at the time of delivery since the seller is better placed than the consumer to access relevant data (e.g. by contacting the producer) and provided that the consumer acts in good faith. In any case the reversal of the burden of proof applies only if compatible with the nature of the goods and of the defects. The seller would, therefore, still be able to escape this reversal of the burden of proof in case of normal wear and tear.

Въпрос Й4: Кой трябва да носи тежестта на доказването, че дефектът е съществувал към момента на доставката? Възможност 1: Запазване на статуквото: през първите шест месеца професионалистът трябва да докаже, че дефектът не е съществувал към момента на доставката. Възможност 2: Професионалиста трябва да докаже, за целия срок на законната гаранция, че дефектът не е съществувал към момента на доставката, ако това е съвместимо с характера на стоките и дефектите.

5.7.1 Introduction

In the context of consumer sales, remedies should lead to the fulfilment of consumers’ reasonable expectations in relation to the contract. However, the Directive provides for remedies only in the case of non-conformity and not other kinds of breaches of contract, e.g. when the goods are not delivered at all. Consumers perceive the existing rules as unsatisfactory. Approximately 70 % of consumers state that when buying goods cross-border it is harder to resolve problems such as returns or price reduction in comparison with the domestic situations.

As mentioned in point 4.9 in this annex, the horizontal instrument might provide for some general remedies, which would apply to any breaches of consumer contracts. The remaining, sale-specific remedies (repair and replacement) could continue to be available only in case of non-conformity of the goods.

5.7.2 The order in which remedies may be invoked

Currently the Directive provides for a particular order in which remedies may be invoked. Reduction of price or termination of contract can only be invoked if repair and replacement are impossible or disproportionate. The Commission has been informed that it is difficult for consumers to assess whether a professional’s claim that a particular remedy would be disproportionate is right or not.

A horizontal instrument could allow consumers to choose freely amongst the available remedies in case of wrong performance. However, to limit the economic burden on the professional, termination of contract would remain available only in case of non-performance and breaches that are so serious as to give consumers reasonable grounds to refuse correct performance.

Alternatively, the horizontal instrument could maintain the current sequence of remedies, with some amendments. For instance, it could provide that the reduction of the price is available immediately as an alternative to repair and replacement, while at the same time altering the conditions under which the consumer can “move” from these first-line remedies to the termination of contract (e.g. in the case of recurring defects).

Въпрос К1: Трябва ли потребителят да има свободата да избира между предоставените средства за правна защита? Възможност 1: Запазване на статуквото: потребителят е длъжен първо да поиска ремонт/смяна, и само ако няма предоставени други средства, да поиска отстъпка или прекратяване на договора. Възможност 2: Потребителите да имат възможност да избират между предоставените средства от самото начало. Независимо от това, , прекратяването на договора да е възможно само при определени условия. Възможност 3: Потребителите се задължават първо да поискат ремонт, смяна или отстъпка от цената, и само ако тези мерки не са предоставени, да поискат прекратяване на договора.

The Directive allows Member States to provide that the consumer must inform the seller of the lack of conformity within a period of no less than two months from the moment of discovery in order to benefit from his rights. Most Member States have made use of this option, some of them waiving this obligation only in certain circumstances. The horizontal instrument should eliminate the existing divergences, which cause confusion for consumers and businesses.

Въпрос К2: Трябва ли потребителите да имат задължението за уведомяване на продавача относно липсата на съответствие? Възможност 1: Да се въведе задължение за уведомяване на продавача за всички дефекти. Възможност 2: Да се въведе задължение за уведомяване при определени обстоятелства (напр. при проява на груба небрежност от страна на продавача в противоречие с изискването за добросъвестност). Възможност 3: Да няма задължение за уведомяване в рамките на определен период.

A number of Member States have introduced various forms of direct liability of producers. These differ considerably as to the conditions and modalities. The horizontal instrument may address these divergences by introducing rules on the direct liability of producers (e.g. the introduction on an EU wide producer’s liability) so that consumers would be able to request certain remedies directly from the manufacturer (and possibly from the importer) throughout the EU. This would eliminate possible internal market barriers and would favour especially consumers buying cross-border. A more detailed analysis can be found in the Report on the implementation of the Consumer Sales Directive.

The issue of producers’ liability in the context of the review of the acquis is limited to situations where a good is not in conformity with the consumer contract, e.g. the product does not have the quality or characteristics that the consumer is entitled to expect. Liability for damage caused by the defectiveness of a product, i.e. death, personal injuries or destruction of any item of property other than the defective product itself, is regulated by the Product Liability Directive and falls outside the scope of the review^31.

Въпрос Л: Трябва ли хоризонталният инструмент да въвежда пряка отговорност за несъответствие за производителите? Възможност 1: Запазване на статуквото: на общностно равнище не се въвеждат правила за пряката отговорност на производителите. Възможност 2: Да се въведе пряка отговорност на производителите при описаните по-горе условия.

On top of the rights conferred upon consumers by legislation, sellers or producers may offer consumers additional rights on a voluntary basis (a so-called commercial guarantee). They can, for example, grant consumers certain rights in case the goods do not meet the specifications set out in the guarantee statement and in associated advertising.

5.10.1 Content of the commercial guarantee

The directive does not address the question of what happens if the guarantee statement omits to inform the consumer on the content of the guarantee. It has been stated that the current situation may mislead consumers who rely on such vague statements without checking whether they are actually granted any additional rights.

A horizontal instrument could remedy this situation by providing a default content of a guarantee setting out basic rights which the guarantee holder should have if these are not spelled out in the guarantee document. These may include a right to replacement or repair if goods are not in conformity with the contract. If the duration of the commercial guarantee is not indicated it could apply to the estimated life-span of the goods. It would have to be EU-wide. Finally, the costs of invoking and performing the guarantee would be borne by the guarantor.

Въпрос М1: Трябва ли хоризонталният инструмент да предвиди съдържание по подразбиране за търговската гаранция? Възможност 1: Запазване на статуквото: хоризонталният инструмент не съдържа правила по подразбиране. Възможност 2: Да се въведат правила по подразбиране за търговските гаранции.

The directive does not regulate the issue of the transferability of the commercial guarantee to subsequent buyers. This is important for consumers who intend to re-sell a product as well as for subsequent buyers who would like the products still to be covered by the commercial guarantee especially in the context of a cross-border transaction.

The horizontal instrument may address this problem by providing that a guarantee would benefit also subsequent buyers of a product. Such a rule could have a mandatory or default character (i.e. the seller would be able to limit the transferability of the guarantee in certain circumstances).

Въпрос М2: Трябва ли хоризонталният инструмент да урежда прехвърлянто за търговската гаранция? Възможност 1: Запазване на статуквото: възможността за прехвърляне на търговската гаранция не се регулира от правилата на Общността. Възможност 2: Да се въведе задължително правило, че гаранцията се прехвърля автоматично към следващия купувач. Възможност 3: Хоризонталният инструмент да разпореди прехвърлянето, като правило по подразбиране, т.е. гарантът да може да изключи или ограничи възможността за прехвърляне на търговската гаранция.

In the case of complex goods (e.g. cars) producers offer commercial guarantees limited to specific parts. The horizontal instrument could make sure that consumers are clearly informed on which parts are covered by a particular guarantee. If such information is not provided the limitation would be without any effect.

Въпрос М3: Трябва ли хоризонталният инструмент да регулира търговски гаранции, ограничени за специфични елементи? Възможност 1: Запазване на статуквото: възможността за предоставяне на търговска гаранция, ограничена до конкретни елементи, не се регулира от хоризонталния инструмент. Възможност 2: Хоризонталният инструмент да предвижда само задължението за уведомяване. Възможност 3: Хоризонталният инструмент да включва задължението за уведомяване и да предвижда, че по подразбиране гаранцията покрива всички стоки, включени в договора.