Types of contracts, related contracts and withdrawal: the arguments of the Judgement of the CEU of 20 march 2020 (C-583/18)
Lídia Arnau Raventós
services contract; sales contract; transport contract; ancillary contract; linked contract; right of withdrawal.
The CJEU discards the classification as a passenger transport service contract (art. 3.3.K Dir. 2011/83) of which a discount card is intended to be applied in the event that the consumer later enters into a contract for transport. The CJEU argues for three reasons: that the contract does not allow "directly" the performance of transport, nor is it a contract "indissolubly linked" to a transport contract and that the exercise of the power to withdraw does not have to entail disproportionate inconveniences to the professional. This comment addresses all three arguments.
Table of contents
- The starting point: the STJUE, of March 12, 2020 (c-583/18, Verbraucherzentrales Berlin eV)
- Inside or outside Dir. 2011/83: the power of withdraw
- Arguments are generalizable?
- Type of contract, link between contracts and power of withdraw
- The typological argument: “direct” access to the service
- The functional argument: indissoluble bonding
- A (perhaps simplistic) interpretation a contrario?
- Related, linked and accessory goods or services… what is what in European private law? Some notes.
- The basis for the exclusion of the power to withdraw in certain contracts: a final “misplaced” argument
- The qualification of the business as a "service contract"
- Service contract and withdrawal