Rechtspraak

  • Bijzonderheden van de zaak
    • Nationaal ID: Supreme Court, Cassation, RW 2018-19.
    • Lidstaat: België
    • Gangbare benaming:N/A
    • Soort beslissing: Beslissing hooggerechtshof
    • Datum beslissing: 08/12/2017
    • Gerecht: Supreme Court (Court of Cassation; Cass. (1e Chamber)
    • Onderwerp:
    • Eiser:
    • Verweerder:
    • Trefwoorden: Off-premises contracts, settlement agreement, right of withdrawal, exceptions
  • Richtlijnartikelen
    Consumer Rights Directive, Chapter 1, Article 2, (5) Consumer Rights Directive, Chapter 1, Article 2, (6) Consumer Rights Directive, Chapter 3, Article 16 Consumer Rights Directive, Chapter 3, Article 16
  • Koptekst

    Even though Article I.8.31 Code of Economic Law (CEL) defines off-premises contracts as contracts between businesses and consumers, the fact that this contract must either relate to the sales of goods or the provision of a service can be a contrario derived from Articles 64 § 1, 1° CEL and 67 § 2 CEL.

  • Feiten
  • Juridische kwestie
  • Uitspraak

    A settlement agreement regarding fire insurance concluded outside the business premises to end a dispute, cannot be categorised as a sales contract or a service contract, and consequently does not constitute as an off-premises contract within the meaning of the Code of Economic Law (CEL). It follows that the settlement agreement itself must not contain a term that specifies the consumer’s withdrawal right.

    Integrale tekst: Integrale tekst

  • Verwante zaken

    Geen resultaten

  • Rechtsleer

    Geen resultaten

  • Resultaat