The court first stated that it is important to draw a distinction between the right of withdrawal and the impossibility to perform the contractual duties in special circumstances. The right of withdrawal stipulated by Article 12 of the Consumer Rights Protection Law (Article 5 of the Directive 85/577/EEC) applies only to situations, where a customer withdraws from a contract. The court then observed that according to Article 16 of the Cabinet of Ministers Regulation No 207 On Distance Contracts, which implements Article 7(2) of the Directive 97/7EC, a service provider is obliged to inform a consumer in a situation, where the service provider is unable to provide the ordered service, within 30 days after the service provider has received consumer’s order. Thus, the court concluded that there may arise situations, where a service provider for objective reasons is not able to deliver the ordered service and in such situation he must inform the consumer and repay the payments received from the consumer. Then the court evaluated the facts of the case in light of the foregoing conclusions and concluded that by sending a cancellation e-mail to the plaintiffs the defendant complied with the requirement to inform a consumer. The fact that this e-mail was automatically re-directed to a plaintiff’s spam folder does not change the fact that the plaintiffs were duly informed by the defendant.