• Bijzonderheden van de zaak
    • Nationaal ID: link
    • Lidstaat: België
    • Gangbare benaming:link
    • Soort beslissing: Overige
    • Datum beslissing: 08/03/2010
    • Gerecht: Hof van Beroep (NL)/Cour d'appel (FR)
    • Onderwerp:
    • Eiser:
    • Verweerder:
    • Trefwoorden:
  • Richtlijnartikelen
    Doorstep Selling Directive, Article 1, 1. Doorstep Selling Directive, Article 1, 2. Doorstep Selling Directive, Article 1, 3. Doorstep Selling Directive, Article 1, 4. Doorstep Selling Directive, Article 4
  • Koptekst
    The claim that the seller could not have known the consumer’s intention to sell his property by any other means and the fact that the consumer agreed to the notarization, are insufficient proof (Art. 1353 Civil Code) to conclude that the seller’s visit took place at the consumer’s express and prior request with the intention to negotiate the conclusion of a contract.
    The contract concluded away from the business premises is null and void when it does not mention the right of cancellation of the consumer. Article 88 Trade Practice Act (now art. 60 Market Practices Act) relates to the public order. The sanction of nullity is therefore absolute. Hence, the Court may refuse the sellers’ claim for equitable compensation for services rendered under the nullified agreement (“in pari cause turpitudinis cessat repetiti”).
  • Feiten
  • Juridische kwestie
  • Uitspraak

    Integrale tekst: Integrale tekst

  • Verwante zaken

    Geen resultaten

  • Rechtsleer

    Geen resultaten

  • Resultaat