Retspraksis

Consumer Rights Directive, Chapter 1, Article 2, (1)

Two owners of a summer house had an agreement with an agency regarding renting out their summer house. In the agreement, the owners had given the agency the right of disposal of their summer house. The owners wanted to terminate the contract and did that with one month’s notice. The agency claimed that the owners had broken the contract as the terms of the contract stated that only once a year was there an opportunity to terminate the contract (no later than June 1) and then the contract would be terminated at the start of the second week of the new year. The owners, on the other hand, claimed that the contract was a consumer contract and therefore, the contract could be terminated with one month’s notice.

In a contract between two owners of a summer house and an agency, the termination clause stated that termination could only happen no later than June 1leading to the termination of the contract at the beginning of the second week of the new year. The owners terminated the contract with one month’s notice. In the contract, the owners had given the agency the right of disposal of their summer house.

Are the two owners of a summer house consumers when they have given an agency the right of disposal of their summer house, and they also use it themselves?

The Court ruled that the two owners were not consumers because they had given the right of disposal to the agency. This ruling likely goes against the previous stand on this point. Other court rulings have been reluctant to not see the owners as consumers as long as they also used the summer house themselves . This being the case even if there was an agency with the right to dispose of the summer house.

Hele teksten: Hele teksten

Ingen resultater

Ingen resultater

The Court of Appeal did not uphold the decision of the Court of First Instance.

Through this judgement, the Court states that if an owner of a summer house makes an agreement with an agency, giving it the right to dispose of the summer house, then the owner is not a consumer in this agreement, even if the owner uses the summer house himself/herself. This judgement goes against previous judgements on the matter. The Court does not comment on this, so it is not clear exactly why this case is different.