(1) According to the court, the improper use of a language does not in itself constitute a misleading practice taking into account the level of knowledge of the average consumer. Furthermore, the court held that the use of specific wording is not a requirement set forth in any applicable legal provisions. Hence, no misleading commercial practice could be established in this respect.
(2) Next, it was established by the court that the indication of the two applicable exchange rates, depending on the type of transaction, was made properly and in compliance with special legislation. As a result, neither this commercial practice was held to constitute an unfair commercial practice.
The court further stated that the average consumer must be assumed to be well aware of the various types of transactions taking place in exchange offices.