The Supreme Court reasoned that the burden of proof rested on the respondent, the creditor, to prove that contrary to the legal assumption provided by Hungarian law with regards to this specific circumstance, the term regarding default interest was not unfair to the consumer. However, the respondent failed to overturn this assumption due to supplying insufficient facts for considering the term fair. Furthermore, the Supreme Court implied that proving a sufficient degree of mitigation or compensation by the business would have also sufficed to overturn the assumption of the term’s unfairness to consumers. And finally, the Supreme Court also acknowledged that courts should examine the discrepancy between what is afforded by law and by the actual contract to the consumer, and whether the business could have reasonably expected the consumer’s consent to the contract in a good faith individual negotiation.
Teljes szöveg: Teljes szöveg