Case law

  • Case Details
    • National ID: 03/36/3370
    • Member State: Finland
    • Common Name:link
    • Decision type: Other
    • Decision date: 26/10/2004
    • Court: Kuluttajavalituslautakunta (Others)
    • Subject:
    • Plaintiff:
    • Defendant:
    • Keywords:
  • Directive Articles
    Distance Selling Directive, Article 4, 1. Distance Selling Directive, Article 4, 2. Distance Selling Directive, Article 4, 3. Distance Selling Directive, Article 6, 1.
  • Headnote
    In a distance selling a consumer can return a good, whose nature is of that kind that normally there would not be right to return, but the trader has failed to inform in a suitable manner of the lack of right to return.
  • Facts
    A Consumer (K) bought on 19 September 2003 a Moose Pipe (a hunting device) from the traders (EH) internet-site. The Pipe was delivered on 2 October 2003, but K informed the Trader that he would return it. Allthough the trader refused the return K returned it on 10 October 2003. The trader refused to refund the price.

    K demanded in the Consumer Complaint Board (the Board) refund of the price and postal and telephone fees related to the sale. According to K the pipe did not sound like a real moose. K also found that he had a right of return pursuant to distance selling provisions. According to K the internet-site of the trader did not contain any information of the right of return.

    The trader denied all demands of K. According to the trader there was information in the internet-site of the trader that due to hygienic reasons and by virtue of international practice there is not right of return.
  • Legal issue
    The Board stated that the consumer has in distance selling a right to cancel the agreement during 14 days from the reception of the good. Unless the parties do not otherwise agree, the consumer has not a right of return if the nature of a good is of that kind that it cannot be returned and resold (The Consumer Protection Act, CPA6:16).

    According to the CPA 6:13 the trader must inform the consumer of the right of cancellation or lack of right of cancellation. The information must be provided clearly, understandably and in a way that is suitable for the distance communication devise.


    According the Board there was in the website of the trader heading “infopoint” under which the trader announced that for hygienic reasons and due in international practice there was not right of return.

    Also the Board held that a pipe that is used orally is a good that cannot be returned due to its nature. The question here, however, was did the trader inform sufficiently clearly of the lack of right to return.

    As to right of return the Board considered the relevance of “infopoint”. The Board referred to the preparatory works of the CPA 6:13 the medium in question should be analysed. For example on internet the reception of relevant information can arranged in a way that the consumer cannot post the order before he/she has read the information. The Board stated that in this case a text that denied the right to return was under separate link “infopoint” and it was not connected to presentation of the Moose Pipe. The name of the link did not refer to terms concerning right to return.

    The Board held, that the trader had not informed K clearly enough of the restriction of right to return. The manner in which the restriction was informed was not clear, understandable and suitable for the medium (CPA 6:13). Therefore the Board held that K had a right to return..
  • Decision

    Full text: Full text

  • Related Cases

    No results available

  • Legal Literature

    No results available

  • Result