The Consequences of Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts

Kód výsledku v IS VaVaI

<a href="https://www.isvavai.cz/riv?ss=detail&h=RIV%2F61989592%3A15220%2F22%3A73616073" target="_blank" >RIV/61989592:15220/22:73616073 - isvavai.cz</a>

Výsledek na webu

<a href="https://tlq.ilaw.cas.cz/index.php/tlq/article/view/499/501" target="_blank" >https://tlq.ilaw.cas.cz/index.php/tlq/article/view/499/501</a>

DOI - Digital Object Identifier

—

Jazyk výsledku

angličtina

Název v původním jazyce

The Consequences of Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts

Popis výsledku v původním jazyce

Provided that a term in a consumer contract is unfair within the meaning of Article 3 (1) of Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts we have to decide what consequences it means for the obligation. The directive only requires that such a term cannot have any effect for the consumer. The article tries to ascertain when the unfairness of a term may lead to the nullity of the entire contract. If the entire contract survives without the unfair term, the national law will offer some tools of how to fill in the gap in the contract, for example supplementary provisions, supplementary interpretations, severability clauses. There is an option too, that the gap does not have to be filled at all. It seems that the CJEU adopts a rather restrictive interpretation, and enables the gap to be filled in if it is necessary to save the contract where the nonexistence (invalidity) of the entire contract would expose the consumer to particularly unfavourable consequences. The article shows that such a restrictive approach is not always in place. Courts should have a broader scope of tools how to establish the balance between the parties, even with ex nunc effects.

Název v anglickém jazyce

The Consequences of Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts

Popis výsledku anglicky

Provided that a term in a consumer contract is unfair within the meaning of Article 3 (1) of Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts we have to decide what consequences it means for the obligation. The directive only requires that such a term cannot have any effect for the consumer. The article tries to ascertain when the unfairness of a term may lead to the nullity of the entire contract. If the entire contract survives without the unfair term, the national law will offer some tools of how to fill in the gap in the contract, for example supplementary provisions, supplementary interpretations, severability clauses. There is an option too, that the gap does not have to be filled at all. It seems that the CJEU adopts a rather restrictive interpretation, and enables the gap to be filled in if it is necessary to save the contract where the nonexistence (invalidity) of the entire contract would expose the consumer to particularly unfavourable consequences. The article shows that such a restrictive approach is not always in place. Courts should have a broader scope of tools how to establish the balance between the parties, even with ex nunc effects.

Druh

J_SC - Článek v periodiku v databázi SCOPUS

CEP obor

—

OECD FORD obor

50501 - Law

Projekt

<a href="/cs/project/GA19-20054S" target="_blank" >GA19-20054S: Procesní specifika řešení spotřebitelských sporů</a><br>

Návaznosti

P - Projekt vyzkumu a vyvoje financovany z verejnych zdroju (s odkazem do CEP)

Rok uplatnění

2022

Kód důvěrnosti údajů

S - Úplné a pravdivé údaje o projektu nepodléhají ochraně podle zvláštních právních předpisů

Název periodika

The Lawyer Quarterly

ISSN

1805-8396

e-ISSN

1805-840X

Svazek periodika

12

Číslo periodika v rámci svazku

1

Stát vydavatele periodika

CZ - Česká republika

Počet stran výsledku

24

Strana od-do

53-76

Kód UT WoS článku

—

EID výsledku v databázi Scopus

2-s2.0-85130744602