• Sagsoplysninger
    • Nationalt ID-nr.: B-1932-03
    • Medlemsstat: Danmark
    • Almindeligt anvendt navn:A vs. K/S Albatros
    • Afgørelsestype: Andet
    • Afgørelsesdato: 17/06/2004
    • Retsinstans: Vestre Landsret
    • Emne:
    • Sagsøger:
    • Sagsøgt:
    • Nøgleord:
  • Direktivets artikler
    Doorstep Selling Directive, Article 5
  • Indledende note
    The case concerned a contract on purchase of shares in a company. The contract was concluded in violation of the prohibition on doorstep selling. Further, the consumer made use of granted right of cancellation. Hence, the contract was terminated.
  • Fakta
    An insurance company contacted without previous request a consumer by telephone regarding an insurance offer. According to § 2(1) of the Act on certain Consumer Contracts, the Act – including the prohibition for a trader to make personal or telephonic application to a consumer on the consumer’s address – does not apply to insurance contracts. The telephone conversation resulted in a meeting being arranged between the insurance company and the consumer.

    However, at the meeting the parties did not discuss any insurance offer. Instead, the company offered and the consumer purchased shares in an investment company which was located at the same address as the insurance company and had the same management. Three days later the consumer cancelled the contract. The insurance company filed a lawsuit against the consumer claiming the consumer was not entitled to cancel the contract and thus was obligated to pay the purchase price for the shares.
  • Juridisk spørgsmål
  • Afgørelse

    The High Court first stated that the fact that the contract concerned an investment in a commercial company did not deprive the buyer her status as consumer, and thus the contract its status as a consumer contract under § 3 of the Act on certain Consumer Contracts (implementing art. 1 of the Doorstep Selling Directive).

    Accordingly, the Act on certain Consumer Contract applied. As the trader’s application in reality did not concern an insurance offer, the exception regarding insurance contracts did not apply. Hence, the matter was covered by the general prohibition regarding contracts concluded on basis of telephonic or personal applications without previous request. Moreover, based on the facts of the case the court found that the sales representative of the insurance company at the meeting with the consumer had granted the consumer a right of withdrawal which the consumer exercised lawfully. Thus, for this reason alone the consumer was entitled to cancel the contract.

    Hele teksten: Hele teksten

  • Relaterede sager

    Ingen resultater

  • Retslitteratur

    Ingen resultater

  • Resultat