header-logo header-logo

11 September 2014
Issue: 7622 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-detail

The right to cancel

A man who hired a removal company had a right to cancel the contract under legislation designed to protect consumers against doorstep selling, the Supreme Court has held.

Under the Cancellation of Contracts made in a Consumer’s Home or Place of Work etc Regulations 2008 (SI 2008/1816), a consumer has a cooling-off period where a contract is made in his or her home. In Robertson v Swift [2014] UKSC 50, Robertson phoned Swift to ask about his removal business. Swift visited Robertson at his home and agreed a price. He then sent Robertson an acceptance document with his standard conditions which included a cancellation clause. Swift visited Robertson’s home a second time to drop off boxes, and collect the signed form and £1,000 deposit. Robertson then phoned, and later wrote to, Swift to cancel the contract. He refused to pay the cancellation charges after noticing that Swift had not correctly notified him of his cancellation rights.

The Supreme Court unanimously held that the 2008 Regulations applied even though there had been two visits to Robertson’s home at his express invitation. Robertson therefore had the right to recover his deposit.

Delivering judgment, Lord Kerr clarified that the cancellation period should be interpreted as meaning: “the period commencing from when the trader is required to give the consumer a written notice of his right to cancel pursuant to reg 7(2) and expiring seven days after the date of receipt by the consumer of a notice of the right to cancel…A failure by a trader to give written notice of the right to cancel does not deprive a consumer of the statutory right to cancel under reg 7(1) of the 2008 Regulations."

 

Issue: 7622 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Carey Olsen—Patrick Ormond

Carey Olsen—Patrick Ormond

Partner joinscorporate and finance practice in British Virgin Islands

Dawson Cornwell—Naomi Angell

Dawson Cornwell—Naomi Angell

Firm strengthens children department with adoption and surrogacy expert

Penningtons Manches Cooper—Graham Green

Penningtons Manches Cooper—Graham Green

Media and technology expert joins employment team as partner in Cambridge

NEWS
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 
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
Thousands more magistrates are to be recruited, under a major shake-up to speed up and expand the hiring process
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’
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’ 
back-to-top-scroll