Europees e-justitieportaal - Case Law
Sluiten

BÈTAVERSIE VAN HET PORTAAL NU BESCHIKBAAR!

Bezoek de bètaversie van het Europees e-justitieportaal en vertel ons wat u ervan vindt!

 
 

Kruimelpad


menu starting dummy link

Page navigation

menu starting dummy link

Case Details

Case Details
National ID link
Lidstaat België
Common Name C.G, T.H. / N.B.
Decision type Overige
Decision date 21/05/2003
Gerecht Hof van Beroep (NL)/Cour d'appel (FR)
Onderwerp
Eiser
Verweerder
Trefwoorden

Doorstep Selling Directive, Article 1, 1.

1. If the principals of an agent go to the premises of the agent to sign the latter’s assignment, this contract cannot be characterised as doorstep selling within the meaning of article 86 of the Act of 14 July 1991 on trade practices and consumer information and protection (“TPA”). Consequently the contract should not include the right of withdrawal on the basis of article 88 of the TPA.
On 27 August 1999, C.G and T.H., appellants, gave N.B., defendant, the exclusive assignment to find a purchaser for their bungalow. The assignment had a duration of three months, with a taciturn extension of three months unless one of the parties terminated the contract by giving notice, at the latest, fifteen days before the end of the three month period.
By notice of 12 November 1999 the appellants terminated the assignment.
The defendant disputed this termination by notice of 22 November 1999 because he had received an offer to purchase the bungalow of which the validity period was not yet expired.
On 13 December 1999 the defendant sent appellants a list of persons with whom he had negotiated. On this list Mr. and Mrs. C.-D. were mentioned. The latter had offered to the defendant to purchase the bungalow and later on the bungalow was sold to them by the appellants.
In court, the agent claimed commission for the sale. The judge assigned him the requested commission, whereupon C.G. and T.H. appealed.
Since the contract which assigned the defendant as the agent of the appellants was not signed on the appelants’ premises, but with the defendant, the contract did not have to mention a right of withdrawal.
The fact that the appellants expected a visit from the agent, in absence of which they went themselves to visit the agent on his premises, is not relevant.
As a result, the appeal was rejected.
Full Text: Full Text

No results available

No results available