YEAR 2020 No 2 Vol. 22

ISSN 2182-9845

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

Keywords

services contract; sales contract; transport contract; ancillary contract; linked contract; right of withdrawal.

Abstract

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

  1. The starting point: the STJUE, of March 12, 2020 (c-583/18, Verbraucherzentrales Berlin eV)
    1. Inside or outside Dir. 2011/83: the power of withdraw
    2. Arguments are generalizable?
  2. Type of contract, link between contracts and power of withdraw
    1. The typological argument: “direct” access to the service
    2. The functional argument: indissoluble bonding
      1. A (perhaps simplistic) interpretation a contrario?
      2. Related, linked and accessory goods or services… what is what in European private law? Some notes.
    3. The basis for the exclusion of the power to withdraw in certain contracts: a final “misplaced” argument
  3. The qualification of the business as a "service contract"
  4. Service contract and withdrawal
  5. Conclusions
  6. Bibliography