WOW. Regulation that is FAIR and BALANCED?
I'm farking moving to the
EU What is the best country to be in for a poor american sap like me!?!?!?!?! I'm not a typical America. I respect other nationalities and will diligently focus on converting my natural language.
Besides the general requirement of "good faith" and "balance", the EU rules contain a list of specific terms that may be judged unfair....
Costas went on a package holiday with his girlfriend to Kenya for which he paid € 2000 per person. The holiday was a disaster. The flight was delayed by 12 hours. The air conditioning in the hotel was not working at all. The safari trip took place but not in the park they had been promised; on top of that, they were transported there by bus instead of by plane. They complained to the tour operator and asked for compensation amounting to a total of €5,000 (€4,000 for the cost of the package and €1,000 for lost time and enjoyment).
The tour operator agreed to compensate them €1,000 only, pointing to a provision in the contract limiting the organiser's liability to 25% of the total cost of the holiday.
Liese was travelling a lot and decided to hire a gardener to come twice a week to look after her lawn and flowerbeds.
But one month in summer the gardener didn't come and the flowers died from lack of water. When Liese complained, the gardener showed her a term in the contract allowing him not to come if he had too much work on for other clients.Liese told the gardener that, according to information she had found on the internet, this clause wasn't valid - she therefore managed to get amicable compensation for the lost flowers and obtained a formal commitment from the gardener guaranteeing his twice-weekly services.
Mary ordered kitchen furniture for her new apartment. She paid a 30% deposit up-front and the company came to her apartment to take measurements. The furniture was supposed to be ready and installed in 8 weeks.
After two months Mary called the seller and was told that, unfortunately, it would not be possible to deliver the furniture for several months. Since Mary wanted to move to her new apartment, she cancelled the contract, bought furniture which was in stock in another shop, and asked for a refund of her deposit. The seller refused to return the deposit pointing to a contract term stating that, if the customer cancels the contract, the seller is entitled to keep the deposit. When Mary had a closer look at the contract she discovered that, had the seller decided to cancel the contract, she would not have been entitled to an equivalent compensation.
Mary checked with her national consumer association, who told her that the contract clause was clearly unfair. Therefore, Mary contacted the seller again, referred to her contacts with the legal experts in the consumer association and managed to get her deposit refunded.
Cristina ordered a wedding dress from a fashion designer. Two weeks before the wedding, she was supposed to meet the designer for a final fitting. When she called him to make an appointment, he told her he'd terminated their contract without providing any real justification.
Cristina checked with a lawyer friend whether the designer could just cancel the contract like that.
Her friend explained it was clearly an unfair term because the contract doesn't give Cristina the same right to cancel. Her friend called the designer and explained the legal situation. The designer contacted Cristina and made an appointment for the fitting. Her dress was ready just in time for the wedding.
Nathalie had a contract with a small local Internet provider, with no end-date specified.
One day she received an e-mail informing her that the contract would be terminated as of next week. She called the provider and asked for an explanation but they couldn't give any real reason for cancelling the contract at such a short notice.
Nathalie contacted a consumer association, who told her such term was most likely unfair. She therefore contacted the Internet provider again and managed to get her Internet subscription extended for sufficient time to enable her to switch to a different provider.
Mark has a one-year mobile phone contract which he concluded 10 months ago. His wife recently switched to a new mobile phone company offering very attractive bundle packs and free calls within the network. Mark decided to switch to this new operator as soon as his contract expired.
He checked his contract and found out that, if he wanted to terminate it, he should have given 6-months' notice. Since he didn't do that, his contract would have been automatically extended for another year.
Mark was disappointed and decided to contact his national consumer organisation.
They informed him it was unfair on the part of the mobile phone company to require that much notice. They advised him to take the matter to court if the company tried to enforce the unfair term.Monika rented an apartment, on a 3-year lease. But it was only when she moved in that she found out she had to use a cleaning service that charged €100 every month, on top of the rent.
Sure enough there was a clause in the contract referring to a document about cleaning services. But Monika had never been given this document.She told the owner of the apartment that this additional obligation wasn't fair because she hadn't been informed of it before signing the lease Monika searched on the Internet and found that "hidden" terms like this are unfair. - and she eventually managed to avoid that fixed cost.
Pavel took out a loan from his bank to buy a new car. After 8 months, he discovered that his monthly instalments had gone up.
When he looked more closely at the contract, Pavel discovered a term authorising the bank to unilaterally change the interest rate without giving Pavel a chance to terminate the contract.He contacted his local consumer association for advice.
They told him that, since there was no clause giving Pavel the right to terminate the contract, the term allowing the bank to put up the interest rate was unfair. They advised him not to pay the higher interest rate and to file an official complaint with them, had the bank refused to review the unfair term - Pavel followed their advice and managed to have the contract clause changed.
Birgit ordered new tiles for her renovated bathroom. She chose white-and-blue striped tiles.
After 4 weeks, the tiles arrived but they were simple white matt tiles with no stripes. When she contacted the supplier, they pointed out that, under the terms and conditions displayed on the order,
if the company was unable to supply any particular item for whatever reason, it would replace it with an item of equivalent standard and value.
Birgit contacted the European Consumer Centres network and
was told it was unfair to have terms and conditions that provided for unilateral changes in the product supplied. With the support of the ECC-net, she eventually got her money back.
Krisztina ordered a personalised photo book with pictures of her child. When the book arrived she discovered that the cover of the book was not the colour she'd chosen. She complained to the seller but he refused to reprint the book.
He referred to the terms and conditions displayed on the order, saying that the delivery is in conformity with the contract when the seller decides it is.Krisztina knew that such terms are unfair and insisted that the trader reprint the book or give her money back. By pointing to her rights, she eventually got the book reprinted at no additional cost.Jake bought some shoes in a shop. He did not have time to try them on but the shop assistant told him that, should the size be wrong, he could take them back and exchange. The shoes indeed turned out to be the wrong size, so Jake took them back.
But the manager refused the exchange and showed him a written document on the conditions of sale which specified in particular that no exchange was possible, and that notwithstanding commitments made by shop assistants, only the rules contained in that document were valid.Jake contacted the European Consumer Centres network who confirmed the unfairness of the term. With the ECC-net's assistance, he soon managed to exchange the shoes for another pair.
Louise subscribed to a business-press–review newsletter.
She was supposed to receive a business press review from all EU countries in English every day. But
sometimes there was no newsletter for 2 or 3 days, and not all the news was translated into English. The next month she received just one newsletter. Even though the service wasn't working properly, she still received invoices for the full subscription fee.
She asked the supplier to reduce the price so she only had to pay for the days when she had actually received the service. However, the company refused pointing out that, according to the contract, the service could be temporarily interrupted without releasing the client from their payment obligations.
In the end, the national consumer organisation stepped in;
Louise's fee was reduced and the service provider was forced to change the unfair term in the contract.
