Tweet
Case C‑97/22: Link to judgment
This was an interesting case I happen to come across today and thought it was worth sharing. To summarise, the consumer entered into an oral contract with a company to carry out electrical work on their house. The contract was deemed to be an off-premises contract in line with the EU Consumer Rights Directive (CRD). The trader failed to provide the consumer with any pre-contract information as required by the CRD but nevertheless proceeded to complete the work and submit an invoice to the consumer. The consumer refused to pay the invoice and gave notice to withdraw from the contract thus claiming to incur no liability despite services being performed.
The court held that in accordance with the Directive, the consumer is not obliged to incur any costs if the relevant pre-contract information has not been provided to them, namely that there would be a cost incurred for the performance of the services. The consequence of this decision is that consumers can effectively benefit from their own breach of contract by refusing to pay if the trader hasn't supplied the pre-contractual information as is required.
Just an FYI for anyone thinking why this is relevant when the UK has left the EU, when we left the EU, the UK implemented the Withdrawal Act to retain all EU law post Brexit and it was agreed that all CJEU decisions (past or future) are binding on the UK courts, although it has since been agreed that such decisions are not binding on the Court of Appeal of Supreme Court who may deviate if they so wish. This position may change in the future however, but for now it would be a binding decision on County Courts and the High Court.
This was an interesting case I happen to come across today and thought it was worth sharing. To summarise, the consumer entered into an oral contract with a company to carry out electrical work on their house. The contract was deemed to be an off-premises contract in line with the EU Consumer Rights Directive (CRD). The trader failed to provide the consumer with any pre-contract information as required by the CRD but nevertheless proceeded to complete the work and submit an invoice to the consumer. The consumer refused to pay the invoice and gave notice to withdraw from the contract thus claiming to incur no liability despite services being performed.
The court held that in accordance with the Directive, the consumer is not obliged to incur any costs if the relevant pre-contract information has not been provided to them, namely that there would be a cost incurred for the performance of the services. The consequence of this decision is that consumers can effectively benefit from their own breach of contract by refusing to pay if the trader hasn't supplied the pre-contractual information as is required.
Just an FYI for anyone thinking why this is relevant when the UK has left the EU, when we left the EU, the UK implemented the Withdrawal Act to retain all EU law post Brexit and it was agreed that all CJEU decisions (past or future) are binding on the UK courts, although it has since been agreed that such decisions are not binding on the Court of Appeal of Supreme Court who may deviate if they so wish. This position may change in the future however, but for now it would be a binding decision on County Courts and the High Court.
Comment