header-logo header-logo

EU consumer conundrum

13 October 2011
Issue: 7485 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-detail

Lawyers voice concerns over new “common European sales” law

Lawyers have spoken out against plans to introduce a second tier of contract law across member states.

The new “common European sales” law, proposed by the European Commission this week, would supplement domestic contract law. The aim is to break down obstacles, such as divergent sales laws, which the Commission claims act as a costly hindrance to cross-border trade, particularly for small firms.

The Commission also claims that traders who are dissuaded from undertaking cross-border transactions due to contract law obstacles forgo at least €26bn in intra-EU trade every year. It estimates that 500 million consumers in Europe lose out on greater choice and lower prices because fewer firms make cross-border offers, particularly in smaller national markets.

Member states would be required to make the new EU law available for sale of goods contracts in which a consumer is involved, or where at least one party is a small or medium enterprise (SME). The law would apply only where contracting parties agree that it should.

However, lawyers fear the proposals could create extra legal complexity and effectively undermine consumer rights.

Vanessa Knapp at Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer says: “The market seems to be pointing to other factors, like language barriers and VAT complexities, to account for any missed cross-border trade opportunities, rather than the absence of contract law uniformity.

“One additional concern for UK businesses is how the new proposals’ key principles of good faith and fair dealing, defined as a standard of conduct characterised by honesty, openness and consideration for the interests of the other party, reconcile with the UK principles of legal certainty and freedom of contract. Many businesses have not yet thought about the difficulties the proposals could bring.”

Peter Lodder QC, chairman of the Bar, said that the Council would continue to challenge the evidential need and legal basis for the implementation of such a contract law. “Different contract laws are not a high-priority for the vast majority of SMEs, particularly in the present economic climate,” he said. “What we can be certain of is that the European sales law will increase costs for all and lead to less certainty in law; a double whammy which is in nobody’s interests.”
 

Issue: 7485 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan—Andrew Savage

Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan—Andrew Savage

Firm expands London disputes practice with senior partner hire

Druces—Lisa Cardy

Druces—Lisa Cardy

Senior associate promotion strengthens real estate offering

Charles Russell Speechlys—Robert Lundie Smith

Charles Russell Speechlys—Robert Lundie Smith

Leading patent litigator joins intellectual property team

NEWS
The government’s plan to introduce a Single Professional Services Supervisor could erode vital legal-sector expertise, warns Mark Evans, president of the Law Society of England and Wales, in NLJ this week
Writing in NLJ this week, Jonathan Fisher KC of Red Lion Chambers argues that the ‘failure to prevent’ model of corporate criminal responsibility—covering bribery, tax evasion, and fraud—should be embraced, not resisted
Professor Graham Zellick KC argues in NLJ this week that, despite Buckingham Palace’s statement stripping Andrew Mountbatten Windsor of his styles, titles and honours, he remains legally a duke
Writing in NLJ this week, Sophie Ashcroft and Miranda Joseph of Stevens & Bolton dissect the Privy Council’s landmark ruling in Jardine Strategic Ltd v Oasis Investments II Master Fund Ltd (No 2), which abolishes the long-standing 'shareholder rule'
In NLJ this week, Sailesh Mehta and Theo Burges of Red Lion Chambers examine the government’s first-ever 'Afghan leak' super-injunction—used to block reporting of data exposing Afghans who aided UK forces and over 100 British officials. Unlike celebrity privacy cases, this injunction centred on national security. Its use, the authors argue, signals the rise of a vast new body of national security law spanning civil, criminal, and media domains
back-to-top-scroll