The court held that if a consumer declares his contractual will by signing a paper delivered by the postman and thus concludes a valid contract by means of doorstep selling, the legal effect of the signature is a material information (Art 7 UCP Directive) and must therefore be explained to the consumer in a clear and unambiguous manner.
Otherwise, as the consumer is not used to such a practice it is rather likely that he is tricked into an agreement by the trader because he will be mistaken in his estimation of his signature as being a mere acknowledgement of receipt of the respective mailing.
Omission to provide information on the legal effects of the consumer's signature, which must be clear and unambiguous, constitutes a misleading omission according to §§ 5 a II, IV UWG (Art 7 section (1) and (5) UCP Directive).