header-logo header-logo

Home Login E-newsletter About us
10 November 2017 / Nathan Webb
Issue: 7769 / Categories: Features , Commercial
printer mail-detail

Getting consumer rights right

© Copyright LexisNexis 2026. All Rights Reserved.
nlj_7769_webb

Cancellation periods & enforceability. Nathan Webb discusses potential pitfalls for traders

  • Traders and their advisers should ensure that contracts entered into with consumers incorporate the right to cancel.
  • If the right to cancel is not notified, the customer will have a claim for breach of contract and it is possible that the trader may not be able to enforce the contract or claim in restitution for any work done or monies advanced under it.

A key innovation in consumer law in recent years has been the introduction of mandatory cancellation periods in consumer contracts. The current statutory provisions requiring notification of cancellation periods to consumers are detailed in the Consumer Contracts (Information, Cancellation and Additional Charges) Regulations 2013 (SI 2013/3134) (the 2013 Regs), which implement the Consumer Rights Directive 2011. Unlike preceding regulations made in 1987 and 2008, the 2013 Regs are silent on the issue of enforceability of a consumer contract where information on cancellation periods is not provided.

This article will explore unenforceability in English law and specifically how it has

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Read All
Jurit LLP—Caroline Williams

Jurit LLP—Caroline Williams

Private wealth and tax team welcomes cross-border specialist as consultant

HFW—Simon Petch

HFW—Simon Petch

Global shipping practice expands with experienced ship finance partner hire

Freeths—Richard Lockhart

Freeths—Richard Lockhart

Infrastructure specialist joins as partner in Glasgow office

NEWS
Read All
NLJ this week: No such thing as a ‘Welsh seat’
Talk of a reserved ‘Welsh seat’ on the Supreme Court is misplaced. In NLJ this week, Professor Graham Zellick KC explains that the Constitutional Reform Act treats ‘England and Wales’ as one jurisdiction, with no statutory Welsh slot
NLJ this week: Jury reform risks justice for efficiency’s sake
The government’s plan to curb jury trials has sparked ‘jury furore’. Writing in NLJ this week, David Locke, partner at Hill Dickinson, says the rationale is ‘grossly inadequate’
NLJ this week: Crypto fightback offers ‘new frontier for law’
A year after the $1.5bn Bybit heist, crypto fraud is booming—but so is recovery. Writing in NLJ this week, Neil Holloway, founder and CEO of M2 Recovery, warns that scams hit at least $14bn in 2025, fuelled by ‘pig butchering’ cons and AI deepfakes
NLJ this week: Time to revive the duty to report crime?
After Woodcock confirmed no general duty to warn, debate turns to the criminal law. Writing in NLJ this week, Charles Davey of The Barrister Group urges revival of misprision or a modern equivalent
NLJ this week: When are experts truly ‘necessary’?
Family courts are tightening control of expert evidence. Writing in NLJ this week, Dr Chris Pamplin says there is ‘no automatic right’ to call experts; attendance must be ‘necessary in the interests of justice’ under FPR Pt 25
Copyright © 2026 LexisNexis
back-to-top-scroll