Case law

  • Case Details
    • National ID: A420533010
    • Member State: Latvia
    • Common Name:link
    • Decision type: Court decision, first degree
    • Decision date: 19/06/2013
    • Court: Administrative District Court
    • Subject:
    • Plaintiff: Unknown
    • Defendant: Consumer Rights Protection Centre
    • Keywords: business premises, distance contracting, place of work
  • Directive Articles
    Doorstep Selling Directive, Article 1
  • Headnote
    A contract, which is concluded on the premises registered for presentation and sale purposes only, is considered as concluded outside the permanent place of business of a service provider.
  • Facts
    Plaintiff invited consumers V.P. and A.P to an individual presentation, where the plaintiff promoted its services – leasing luxury class hotel suites in Tenerife. The presentation was held in a conference hall in a hotel. Plaintiff promoted its services in a very intense manner and repeatedly urged consumers V.P. and A.P. to conclude a contract immediately, in order to secure the hotel suite. As a result, consumers V.P. and A.P. concluded the contract and immediately paid an advance payment. When consumers V.P. and A.P. arrived a few days later to the plaintiff’s registered place of business, they discovered that the services offered during the presentation differ from the services actually included in the contract. Consumers V.P. and A.P. demanded a termination of the contract and a refund. After the plaintiff refused to provide a refund, consumers V.P. and A.P. submitted a complaint to the defendant, who ordered the plaintiff to refund the consumers V.P. and A.P. Plaintiff disagreed with the position of the defendant and argued that refund is not applicable since the contract was concluded in the permanent place of business of the plaintiff. Consequently, plaintiff appealed the decision of the defendant in the Administrative District Court.
  • Legal issue
    The court first observed that the contract between the plaintiff and the consumers V.P. and A.P. was concluded in a conference hall in a hotel, where the plaintiff had registered a structural unit for presentation and sale purposes. The court, however, noted that the conference hall in a hotel, which the plaintiff used to hold presentations and conclude agreements, is not an exclusive place of business of the plaintiff and these premises may be used by other persons for other purposes.
    Further, the court examined, whether consumers would be able to obtain the plaintiff’s service on the actual premises, where the plaintiff’s official place of business is registered. In this regard the court concluded that consumers would not be able to receive plaintiff’s services at the plaintiff’s registered place of business, taking into account that the services of the plaintiff cannot be obtained in any way other than receiving a direct invitation from the plaintiff to arrive for a presentation to a conference hall in the hotel during a pre-determined time.
    Taking into account the aforementioned, the court concluded that the contract between the consumers V.P. and A.P. was concluded outside the plaintiff’s permanent place of business within the meaning of Article 1 of the Directive 85/577/EEC, consequently the consumers were entitled to use the rights of withdrawal laid down in Article 12(2)(1) of the Consumer Rights Protection Law (Article 5 of the Directive 85/577/EEC).
  • Decision

    Can a contract, which is concluded on the premises registered for presentation and sale purposes, be considered as concluded in the permanent place of business of a service provider?

    URL: https://manas.tiesas.lv/eTiesasMvc/nolemumi/pdf/126066.pdf

    Full text: Full text

  • Related Cases

    No results available

  • Legal Literature

    No results available

  • Result
    The court upheld the decision of the Consumer Rights Protection Centre and dismissed the claim of the plaintiff.