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
Sponsored by
London Solicitors Litigation Association—John McElroy

London Solicitors Litigation Association—John McElroy

Fieldfisher partner appointed president as LSLA marks milestone year

Kingsley Napley—Kirsty Churm & Olivia Stiles

Kingsley Napley—Kirsty Churm & Olivia Stiles

Firm promotes two lawyers to partnership across employment and family

Foot Anstey—five promotions

Foot Anstey—five promotions

Firm promotes five lawyers to partnership across key growth areas

NEWS
Read All
NLJ this week: Divorce ‘nuclear weapon’ freezes assets but entangles outsiders
Freezing orders in divorce proceedings can unexpectedly ensnare third parties and disrupt businesses. In NLJ this week, Lucy James of Trowers & Hamlins explains how these orders—dubbed a ‘nuclear weapon’—preserve assets but can extend far beyond spouses to companies and business partners 
NLJ this week: What counts as ‘rent’? Court says labour alone won’t do
A Court of Appeal ruling has clarified that ‘rent’ must be monetary—excluding tenants paid in labour from statutory protection. In this week's NLJ, James Naylor explains Garraway v Phillips, where a tenant worked two days a week instead of paying rent
Your magistrates’ court needs you!
Thousands more magistrates are to be recruited, under a major shake-up to speed up and expand the hiring process
NLJ this week: Freed but failed—justice system leaves the innocent empty-handed
Three men wrongly imprisoned for a combined 77 years have been released—yet received ‘not a penny’ in compensation, exposing deep flaws in the justice system. Writing in NLJ this week, Dr Jon Robins reports on Justin Plummer, Oliver Campbell and Peter Sullivan, whose convictions collapsed amid discredited forensics, ‘oppressive’ police interviews and unreliable ‘cell confessions’
NLJ this week: Clarity on whistleblowing, settlements and tribunal limits
A quiet month for employment cases still delivers key legal clarifications. In his latest Employment Law Brief for NLJ, Ian Smith reports that whistleblowing protection remains intact even where disclosures are partly self-serving, provided the worker reasonably believes they serve the ‘public interest’ 
Copyright © 2026 LexisNexis
back-to-top-scroll