1 Bacon, De Dignitate et Augmentis Scientarum, engl. translation, Works V (edited by J. Speddings et al.), London 1869, 8th Book, Titel I, Aphorism 8.Google Scholar

2 See Wieacker, Das Sozialmodell der klassischen Privatrechtsgesetzbücher und die Entwicklung der modernen Gesellschaft, 1953; see as well Franz Wieacker, Tony Weir (trans.), and Reinhard Zimmermann, A History of Private Law in Europe, Oxford UP 1996; Unger, Law in Modern Society, 1976, p. 194 et passim; Atiyah/Summers, Form and Substance in Anglo-American Law, Oxford UP 1987; Calliess, Prozedurales Recht, 1999, Chapter 1.Google Scholar

3 Micklitz, , A Comment on Party Autonomy and Consumer Regulation in the European Community – A Plea for Consistency, in: Grundmann/Kerber/Weatherill (ed.), Party Autonomy and the Role of Information in the Internal Market, 2001, 197.Google Scholar

4 Collins, , Regulating Contracts, Oxford UP 1999Google Scholar

5 See Thibierge-Guelfucci, Libres propos sur la transformation du droit des contrats, Revue Trimestrielle de Droit Civil 1997, 357 ff. (“principe de fraternité contractuelle”); Lurger, Grundfragen der Vereinheitlichung des Vertragsrechts in der Europäischen Union, 2002, 370 ff., 376 ff. (”Prinzip der Rücksichtnahme und Fairness“ = principle of consideration and fairness). On the “principle of good faith” see Zimmermann/Whittaker (eds.), Good Faith in European Contract Law, Cambridge UP 2000; and on the “duty to deal fairly” in contract law see as well Commission of the European Communities, Green Paper on EU Consumer Protection, COM(2001) 531 final http://europa.eu.int/comm/consumers/cons_int/safe_shop/fair_bus_pract/green_pap_comm/fair_comm_greenpap_en.pdf, see as well the overview and follow-up at http://europa.eu.int/comm/consumers/cons_int/safe_shop/fair_bus_pract/index_en.htm, and the Proceedings of the SECOLA Conference of May 2002 in London (www.secola.org).Google Scholar

6 See MacCormick, , Legal Reasoning and Legal Theory, Oxford UP 1978, 73; Kelsen, General Theory of Law and States, Harvard UP 1946, 14; Luhmann, Das Recht der Gesellschaft, 1993, 223 ff., 231 f.Google Scholar

7 See the contributions to Grundmann (ed.), Systembildung und Systemlücken in Kerngebieten des Europäischen Privatrechts, 2000; Joerges, Interactive Adjudication in the Europeanisation Process? A Demanding Perspective and a Modest Example, European Review of Private Law (ERPL) 2000, p. 1 ff.; Micklitz (supra note 3); Schlechtriem, Wandlungen des Schuldrechts in Europa – wozu und wohin, Zeitschrift für Europäisches Privatrecht (ZEuP) 2002, p. 213 ff.; Calliess, The Limits of Eclecticism in Consumer Law: National Struggles and the Hope for a coherent European Contract Law. A Comment on the ECJ's and the FCJ's “Heininger”- decisions, German L.J. Vol. 3 No. 8 - 1 July 2002 – Private Law, available at www.germanlawjournal.com/past_issues.php?id=175; Commission of the European Communities, Communication on European Contract Law, 2 July 2001, COM(2001) 398 final: http://europa.eu.int/comm/consumers/cons_int/safe_shop/fair_bus_pract/cont_law/cont_law_02_en.pdf and Consumer Policy Strategy 2002-2006, Communication of 7 May 2002, COM(2002) 208 final: http://europa.eu.int/eur-lex/pri/en/oj/dat/2002/c_137/c_13720020608en00020023.pdf Google Scholar

8 Lando, /Beale, , (ed.), Principles of European Contract Law Parts I & II, 2000; (Part I & II 1999, Part III 2002) available at http://www.cbs.dk/departments/law/staff/ol/commission_on_ecl/pecl_full_text.htm Google Scholar

9 See www.sgecc.net Google Scholar

10 See www.secola.org Google Scholar

11 See as well the work of the Trento Group (www.jus.unitn.it/dsg/common-core/home.html): see Bussani/Mattei (eds.), The Common Core of European Private Law. Essays on the Projekt, Kluwer Law International 2002; the Gandolfi Group: Giuseppe Gandolfi (ed.), Code Europeén des Contrats – Avant-projet, Milano 2001; and there are a lot more ”Groups“.Google Scholar

12 See Micklitz (supra note 3); Consumer Policy Strategy 2002-2006, COM(2002) 208 final; the work of the ”Acquis Group“ (www.jura.uni-bielefeld.de/Lehrstuehle/Schulte-Noelke/Institute_Projekte/Acquis_Group/index.html) is dedicated to this topic: see Schulte-Nölke/Schulze (eds.), Europäisches Vertragsrecht im Gemeinschaftsrecht, Schriftenreihe der Europäischen Rechtsakademie Trier, Vol. 22, 2002 Google Scholar

13 See Grundmann/Kerber, European System of Contract Laws - A Map for Combining the Advantages of Centralised and Decentralised Rulemaking, in: Grundmann/Stuyck (eds.), An Academic Green Paper on European Contract Law, (Kluwer) 2002, draft PDF available at www.secola.org Leuven Conference; Grundmann, Binnenmarktkollisionsrecht - vom klassischen IPR zur Integrationsordnung, RabelsZ 69 (2000) 457-477; Grundmann, Internationales Privatrecht als Verfassungsordnung, RIW 2002, 329 ff.Google Scholar

14 See the compilation at Schulze/Zimmermann (eds.), Basistexte zum Europäischen Privatrecht, 2^nd Ed. 2002; and the commentaries at Grundmann, Europäisches Schuldvertragsrecht, ZGR Sonderheft 15, 1999.Google Scholar

15 See ECJ of 20 February 1979 (C 120/78) “Cassis de Dijon”; and the Commission White Paper on the Single Market COM (1985) 310; see also Epiney in: C. Calliess/Ruffert (eds.), Kommentar zu EUV und EGV, 2^nd Ed. July 2002, Art. 28 EGV (EC-Treaty) No. 20 et seq.Google Scholar

16 Consolidated version at OJ C 27 of 26 January 1998, p. 34–46: http://europa.eu.int/eur-lex/pri/en/oj/dat/1998/c_027/c_02719980126en00340053.pdf see as well www.rome-convention.org/ Google Scholar

17 See Foss/ Bygrave, International Consumer Purchases Through The Internet: Jurisdictional Issues Pursuant To European Law, IJL&IT 2000 8 (99); Heiss, in: Czernich/Heiss (eds.), EVÜ – Das Europäische Schuldvertragsübereinkommen. Kommentar, 1999, Art. 5; Magnus in: Staudinger, EGBGB, Art. 29 (2002).Google Scholar

18 Directive 97/7/EC, OJ 1997 L 144/19 http://europa.eu.int/comm/consumers/cons_int/safe_shop/dist_sell/index_en.htm Google Scholar

19 See the country reports in Spindler/Börner (ed.), E-Commerce-Law in Europe and the USA, 2002, where sometimes it is not reported, wether the term days is restricted to working days or not.Google Scholar

20 Magnus, in: Staudinger (2002), Art. 28 EGBGB Note 653-655Google Scholar

21 Directive 2000/31/EC, OJ L 178/1 http://europa.eu.int/smartapi/cgi/sga_doc?smartapi!celexapi!prod!CELEXnumdoc&lg=en&numdoc=32000L0031&model=guichett Google Scholar

22 Spindler, Herkunftslandprinzip und Kollisionsrecht - Binnenmarktintegration ohne Harmonisierung? Die Folgen der Richtlinie im elektronischen Geschäftsverkehr für das Kollisionsrecht, RabelsZ 2002, 633, 684 f.Google Scholar

23 Vgl. Glatt, Vertragsschluss im Internet, 2002, p. 123 ff.; otherwise Maack, Die Durchsetzung des AGB-rechtlichen Transparenzgebots in internationalen Verbraucherverträgen, 2001, p. 155 ff., 186Google Scholar

24 Para. 355 (3) Sentence 3 German Civil Code (BGB), which was introduced as a result of the ECJ's Heininger decision, see Calliess (supra note 7) www.germanlawjournal.com/past_issues.php?id=175 Google Scholar

25 The reason fort he unavailability of market-insurance in case of guarantees or late cancellations due to a failure of informing the consumer properly about his rights is simply, that there are involved to many potential moral hazards on the side of the seller. An insurer offering a respective police, thus, would attract too many bad risks. See only Wehrt, Warranties, in: Bouckaert/De Geest (eds.), Encyclopedia of Law and Economics, Volume III., 2000, S. 179 ff.Google Scholar

26 For a detailed analysis see von Bar/Lando/Swann, Communication on European Contract Law: Joint Response of the Commission on European Contract Law and the Study Group on a European Civil Code, ERPL 2002, 182, 199 ff.Google Scholar

27 Drasch, , Das Herkunftslandprinzip im internationalen Privatrecht, 1997, p. 288 et passimGoogle Scholar

28 See Roth, Europäischer Verbraucherschutz und BGB, Juristenzeitung (JZ) 2001, 475; Calliess, Nach der Schuldrechtsreform: Perspektiven des Verbrauchervertragsrechts, Archiv für die Civilistische Praxis (AcP) 203 (2003), forthcoming.Google Scholar

29 See ECJ Case C-376/98, Judgement of 5 October 2000, http://curia.eu.int/jurisp/cgi-bin/form.pl?lang=en&Submit=Submit&docrequire=alldocs&numaff=C-376%2F98&datefs=&datefe=&nomusuel=&domaine=&mots=&resmax=100, where the ECJ annulled the Directive 98/43/EC on advertising and sponsorship of tobacco products for not being covered by the powers specifically conferred on the Community under Art. 95 EC-Treaty, since the Directive in question in fact did not “genuinely have as its object the improvement of the conditions for the establishment and functioning of the internal market.” (No. 81 ff., 84).Google Scholar

30 See only Roth, Der Einfluss des Europäischen Gemeinschaftsrechts auf das Internationale Privatrecht, RabelsZ 1991, 623; Basedow, Der kollisionsrechtliche Gehalt der Produktfreiheiten im europäischen Binnenmarkt: favor offerentis, RabelsZ 1995, 1, 15.Google Scholar

31 Starting with ECJ of 20 February 1979 (C 120/78) “Cassis de Dijon”, where the ECJ ruled, that a rule prescribing a minimum alcohol percentage for liquor is improportionate, if an information rule will suffice; see as well Epiney in: Calliess/Ruffert (eds.), Kommentar zu EUV und EGV, 2nd Ed. July 2002, Art. 28 EGV (EC-Treaty) No. 25.Google Scholar

32 Art. 153 (1) EC-Treaty and Art. 38 Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (OJ C 364/1 of 18. December 2000).Google Scholar

33 See Reich, , Bürgerrechte in der Europäischen Union, 1999, p. 266 f. (”passive Marktfreiheiten“) with extensive reference to the ECJ.Google Scholar

34 See Grundmann (supra note 14) Part 1 Note 80, 118Google Scholar

35 Spindler, Herkunftslandprinzip und Kollisionsrecht - Binnenmarktintegration ohne Harmonisierung? Die Folgen der Richtlinie im elektronischen Geschäftsverkehr für das Kollisionsrecht, RabelsZ 2002, 633Google Scholar

36 Commission communication to the Council and Parliament concerning the European contract law, COM(2001) 398 final, (OJ C 255/1 of 13.9.2001): http://europa.eu.int/comm/consumers/cons_int/safe_shop/fair_bus_pract/cont_law/cont_law_02_en.pdf; all comments and follow-up documents available at http://europa.eu.int/comm/consumers/cons_int/safe_shop/fair_bus_pract/cont_law/index_en.htm Google Scholar

37 See only Grundmann/Stuyck (eds.), An Academic Green Paper on European Contract Law, (Kluwer) 2002; von Bar/Lando/Swann, Communication on European Contract Law: Joint Response of the Commission on European Contract Law and the Study Group on a European Civil Code, ERPL 2002, 182-248; Staudenmayer, The Commission Communication on European Contract Law and the Future Prospects, 51 International and Comparative Law Quarterly (2002), 673-688; Schlechtriem, Wandlungen des Schuldrechts in Europa – wozu und wohin, ZEuP 2002, 213 ff.; Kötz, Alte und neue Aufgaben der Rechtsvergleichung, JZ 2002, 257 ff.; Schwintowski, Auf dem Weg zu einem Europäischen Zivilgesetzbuch, JZ 2002, 205 ff.; Sonnenberger, Privatrecht und Internationales Privatrecht im künftigen Europa: Fragen und Perspektiven, Recht der Iinternationalen Wirtschaft (RIW) 2002, 489 ff.; Grundmann, Internationales Privatrecht als Verfassungsordnung, RIW 2002, 329 ff.; Ott/Schäfer, Die Vereinheitlichung des europäischen Vertragsrechts. Ökonomische Notwendigkeit oder akademisches Interesse, in: Ott/Schäfer (ed.), Vereinheitlichung und Diversität des Zivilrechts in transnationalen Wirtschaftsräumen, 2002, p. 203 ff.; Eidenmüller, Obligatorische versus optionales europäisches Vertragsgesetzbuch, in: Ott/Schäfer (ed.), Vereinheitlichung und Diversität des Zivilrechts in transnationalen Wirtschaftsräumen, 2002, p.237 ff.Google Scholar

38 COM(2002) 654 final. http://europa.eu.int/eur-lex/pri/en/dpi/gpr/doc/2002/com2002_0654en01.doc see as well http://europa.eu.int/comm/justice_home/news/intro/news_160103_2_en.htm Google Scholar

39 COM(2003) 68 final http://europa.eu.int/eur-lex/en/com/cnc/2003/com2003_0068en01.pdf Google Scholar

40 See Green Paper COM(2002) 654 final at 1.6Google Scholar

41 See the Executive Summary in COM(2001) 398 final.Google Scholar

42 See the summary of the consultation process in the Action Plan COM(2003) 68 final, Part 3Google Scholar

43 E.g. Schlechtriem/Schmidt-Kessel, Urteilsanmerkung zu BGH-Urteil vom 25.11.1998 - VIII ZR 259/97, Grenzüberschreitender Kauf, Vereinbarung deutschen Rechts in AGB, Mängelrüge, Verzicht, Verwirkung, in: EWıR 1999, 257; see as well the thorough analysis at von Bar/Lando/Swann, Communication on European Contract Law: Joint Response of the Commission on European Contract Law and the Study Group on a European Civil Code, ERPL 2002, 182, 194 ff.Google Scholar

44 See von Bar/Lando/Swann, Communication on European Contract Law: Joint Response of the Commission on European Contract Law and the Study Group on a European Civil Code, ERPL 2002, 182, 206 ff.Google Scholar

45 See Ott/Schäfer, Die Vereinheitlichung des europäischen Vertragsrechts. Ökonomische Notwendigkeit oder akademisches Interesse (supra note 37).Google Scholar

46 See Action Plan COM(2003) 68 final, Executive Summary, Paragraph 1.Google Scholar

47 See Green Paper COM(2002) 654 final at 1.6Google Scholar

48 See Schmid, Legitimitätsbedingungen eines Europäischen Zivilgesetzbuchs, JZ 2001, 433; Schmid, Neuordnungsperspektiven im europäischen Privatrecht. Plädoyer für ein Europäisches Rechtsinstitut und für ”Restatements“ über europäisches Recht, in: Jahrbuch Junger Zivilrechtswissenschaftler 1999, 33.Google Scholar

49 COM(2002) 208 finalGoogle Scholar

50 COM(2002) 654 finalGoogle Scholar

51 See the overview at http://europa.eu.int/comm/justice_home/fsj/civil/fsj_civil_intro_en.htm Google Scholar

52 See the Follow-up of the consultation on a preliminary draft proposal for a Council Regulation on the law applicable to non-contractual obligations (“Rome II”) at http://europa.eu.int/comm/justice_home/unit/civil/consultation/contributions_en.htm; see as well Hamburg Group for Private International Law, Comments on the European Commission's Draft Proposal for a Council Regulation on the Law Applicable to Non-Contractual Obligations, RabelsZ 2003, 1-56.Google Scholar

53 Explanatory Report on the Convention on the accession of the Republic of Austria, the Republic of Finland and the Kingdom of Sweden, available at: http://www.rome-convention.org/instruments/i_rep_afs_en.htm Google Scholar

54 ECJ Case 150/77, judgement of 21 June 1978 Google Scholar

55 Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters, OJ L 012, 16/01/2001 p. 1–23, available at http://europa.eu.int/smartapi/cgi/sga_doc?smartapi!celexapi!prod!CELEXnumdoc&lg=en&numdoc=32001R0044&model=guichett Google Scholar

56 See again Grundmann, Europäisches Schuldvertragsrecht, 1999.Google Scholar

57 There are, of course, general mandatory protection rules like § 138 BGB, which protect any party, including, but not limited to consumers: an example is the protection of private guarantors (see BVerfG, NJW 1994, 36), which are not protected by Community measures, if the credit agreement secured by the guarantee is not a consumer contract: see ECJ Case C-45/96 – Dietzinger, ECR 1998 I-1199.Google Scholar

58 This was illustrated by the Heininger-Case of the ECJ and the resulting reform of the German reform of the law of obligations: see Calliess (supra note 7) www.germanlawjournal.com/past_issues.php?id=175; see as well Safferling, Re-Kodifizierung des BGB im Zeitalter der Europäisierung des Zivilrechts – ein Anachronismus?, in: Jahrbuch Junger Zivilrechtswissenschaftler 2001, p. 133Google Scholar

59 Rauscher, Gran Carnaria - Isle of Man - Was kommt danach? Plädoyer für einen europäischen Ordre Public, Europäische Zeitschrift für Wirtschaftsrecht (EuZW) 1996, 650 – 653; BGHZ 135, 124 = NJW 1997, 1697: no right to revocation under HWiG (legislation transposing Directive 85/577/EEC on contracts concluded away from business premises into German law) in case of a contract on a time-share in a flat located in Spain, concluded between a German tourist and a business domiciled on the Isle of Man on ocassion of a promotion event in the respective holiday resort, to which the tourist was invited while walking around in the streets of the Spanish city.Google Scholar

60 See e.g. Art. 6(2) of the Unfair Contract Terms Directive (1993/13/EC); Art. 9 Timeshare Directive (1994/47/EC); Art. 12(2) Distance Selling Directive (97/7/EC); Art. 7(3) Consumer Sales Directive (1999/44/EC); Art 11(3) Distance Financial Services Directive (2002/65/EC)Google Scholar

61 See Green Paper at 3.1.1.1.Google Scholar

62 Basedow, Materielle Rechtsangleichung und Kollisionsrecht, in: Schnyder/Heiss/Rudisch (eds.), Internationales Verbraucherschutzrecht, 1995, 11, 34Google Scholar

63 Accessible at http://www.drt.ucl.ac.be/gedip.Google Scholar

64 BGHZ 135, 124 ff.Google Scholar

65 See Magnus, , in: Staudinger (2002), commentary on Art. 29 a EGBGBGoogle Scholar

66 Klauer, , Das europäische Kollisionsrecht der Verbraucherverträge zwischen Römer EVÜ und EG-Richtlinien, 2002, 174 ff.Google Scholar

67 ECJ Case 381/98, judgment of 9 November 2000 Google Scholar

68 See Green Paper at 3.2.8.3Google Scholar

69 See Savigny, , System des heutigen Römischen Rechts, Vol. 8, 1849.Google Scholar

70 See ECJ Case 150/77 – Bertrand, ECR 1978, 1431 N 17 ff.; ECJ Case C-269/95 – Benincasa, ECR 1997 I-3767 N 13; both on the restrictive interpretation of Art. 13, 14 of the 1968 Brussels Convention; see as well on the consumer concept in the Directives ECJ Case C-361/89 – Di Pinto, ECR 1991 I-1189 N 15-19; ECJ Case C-45/96 – Dietzinger, ECR 1998 I-1199; On the restrictive interpretation Art. 5 Rome Convention = Art. 29 EGBGB see the German FCJ in: BGHZ 135, 124 (133 ff.).Google Scholar

71 BGHZ 135, 124Google Scholar

72 BGHZ 135, 124Google Scholar

73 BGHZ 123, 124Google Scholar

74 See Magnus, , in: Staudinger (2002), Art. 29 EGBGB N 45 ff.; Heiss, in: Czernich/Heiss, EVÜ, 1999, Art. 5 N 14 ff.Google Scholar

75 See e.g. the terms and conditions of www.Amazon.com for E-Books, where only limited rights of use (personalised on screen reading, making a certain amount of hard copies) are transferred to the “buyer”, which is technically ensured by a personally registered software (e.g. Acrobat E-Book Reader).Google Scholar

76 Accessible at http://www.drt.ucl.ac.be/gedip Google Scholar

77 See supra note 55, text available at http://europa.eu.int/smartapi/cgi/sga_doc?smartapi!celexapi!prod!CELEXnumdoc&lg=EN&numdoc=32001R0044&model=guichett Google Scholar

78 See Reich, , Bürgerrechte in der EU, 1999, p. 262: ”Unter Verbraucher wird … jeder Unionsbürger verstanden, der auf dem Binnenmarkt für Waren- und Dienstleistungen als Nachfrager auftritt und damit seine persönlichen Bedarfe befriedigen will.“Google Scholar

79 See supra note 76: ”supply … to a person“Google Scholar

80 See Art. 1(1) Directive 85/577/EEC on contracts concluded away from business premises, see http://europa.eu.int/comm/consumers/cons_int/safe_shop/door_sell/index_en.htm: “contracts under which a trader supplies goods or services to a consumer”; Art. 1(2) c) Consumer Credit Directive (87/102/EEC) as amended, see the overview on the issue including the proposol for reform at: http://europa.eu.int/comm/consumers/cons_int/fina_serv/cons_directive/index_en.htm: “‘credit agreement’ means an agreement whereby a creditor grants or promises to grant to a consumer a credit” (= Art. 2(c) of the reform proposal); Art. 2(1) Distance Selling Directive (97/7/EC), see http://europa.eu.int/comm/consumers/cons_int/safe_shop/dist_sell/index_en.htm: “‘distance contract’ means any contract concerning goods or services concluded between a supplier and a consumer under an organized distance sales or service-provision scheme run by the supplier”; Art. 1(1) Unfair Contract Terms Directive (93/13/EEC), see http://europa.eu.int/comm/consumers/cons_int/safe_shop/unf_cont_terms/index_en.htm: “contracts concluded between a seller or supplier and a consumer”; Art. 2(1) in connection with Art. 1(2) a) - c) of the Consumer Sales Directive (1999/44/EC), see http://europa.eu.int/smartapi/cgi/sga_doc?smartapi!celexapi!prod!CELEXnumdoc&lg=en&numdoc=31999L0044&model=guichett: “seller must deliver goods to the consumer”.Google Scholar

81 The consideration offered by the consumer must – of course – not be a adequate. However, there is no need for contractual consumer protection in case of a gratuitous promise of a business. The scope of this concept is best described by the term “entgeltliche Leistung” (something like: performance in exchange for a (i.e. any) consideration) used in section 312(1) German Civil Code (the “BGB”) with regard to door-step selling. The problem of a contract without consideration was addressed as well in ECJ Case C-45/96 – Dietzinger, ECR 1998, I-1199, where the ECJ ruled that the Door-Step-Selling Directive 85/577/EEC is applicable to a guarantee, although the guarantor receives no consideration himself, since the guarantee is connected to the credit agreement and the creditor provides a service (credit) to a third party (the debtor). However, according to the ECJ the credit agreement itself must be a consumer credit in order for the Directive being applicable to the guarantee. See as well BGH, NJW 1998, 2356.Google Scholar

82 All three problems are implicitly adressed by the solutions proposed by the Grenn Paper at 3.2.7.3Google Scholar

83 See Reich/Nordhausen, Verbraucher und Recht im elektronischen Geschäftsverkehr, 2000, which propose to generally apply the acquis of the European consumer protection directives as the “mandatory law of the forum” instead of the law of the consumers’ home-state. See as well Grundmann, Binnenmarktkollisionsrecht - vom klassischen IPR zur Integrationsordnung, RabelsZ 69 (2000) 457-477, proposing the application of the business’ home-state law in combination with a direct application of the acquis, where necessary.Google Scholar

84 Art. 5 Rome Convention is interpreted by many authors in the light of the solution of Art. 2 a) CISG (see hereto Ferrari, in: Schlechtriem (ed.), CISG-Kommentar, 3rd ed. 2000, Art 2 N. 15 ff.), which interpretation builds on the report of Guliano/Lagarde (OJ C 282 of 31/10/1980 S. 1-50): see Magnus, in: Staudinger (2002), Art. 29 EGBGB N. 38; Heiss, in: Czernich/Heiss, EVÜ, Art. 5 N. 8; Glatt, Internetverträge, 2002, p. 105–109; Foss/Bygrave, International Consumer Purchases Trough the Internet, International Journal of Law and IT 2000 8(99). However, this interpretation is contested and not yet supported by precedence.Google Scholar

85 See e.g. Fallenböck, , Internet und internationales Privatrecht, 2001, at 61 (commenting on the solution of the UCITA), and 107; see as well Nimmer, Through the Looking Glass: What Courts and UCITA Say About the Scope of Contract Law in the Information Age, 38 Duq. L. Rev. (2000) 255, 262 ff.; Art. 109 b) UCITA 2002 reads as follows: (1) An access contract or a contract providing for electronic delivery of a copy is governed by the law of the jurisdiction in which the licensor was located when the agreement was entered into. (2) A consumer contract that requires delivery of a copy on a tangible medium is governed by the law of the jurisdiction in which the copy is or should have been delivered to the consumer.Google Scholar

86 See Magnus, , in: Staudinger (2002), Art. 28 EGBGB Note 653-655; Glatt, Vertragsschluss im Internet, 2002, p. 123 ff.; Maack, Die Durchsetzung des AGB-rechtlichen Transparenzgebots in internationalen Verbraucherverträgen, 2001, p. 155 ff., 186; Reich/Nordhausen, Verbraucher und Recht im elektronischen Geschäftsverkehr, 2000 at 86 ff.Google Scholar

87 See only Heiss, , RabelsZ 2001, 634 ff., 650: ”Wo Art. 5 EVÜ greift, will er [der Unternehmer, GPC] überhaupt keine Rechtswahl, zumal sie ihn nur belasten kann.“ (Where Art. 5 is applicable, the business does not want a choice of law, since it will result to the detriment of the business)Google Scholar

88 After the accession of the 10 candidate states in 2004.Google Scholar

89 For the use of that term see generally Beck, Gegengifte – Die organisierte Unverantwortlichkeit, 1988; in the context of private law legislation see only Safferling, supra note 58.Google Scholar

90 I.e. an illusion or fabrication of the mind or fancy. This term was used by Christian Joerges at the May 2002 Conference of SECOLA in London, in this context indicating that the “active consumer” is a fabrication of the Commission in order to annex competencies in consumer protection law.Google Scholar

91 According to a survey of the European Mail Order and Distance Selling Trade Association (EMOTA) of 30.09.2002 (www.emota-aevpc.org/) this is true even for distance selling: ”Sales to consumers in other states directly across borders are still insignificant (no more than 3%) as a part of total sales due to existing barriers. Companies prefer to work together with or acquire a local firm in order to profit from their knowledge of the local market, consumer attitude and interpretation of local legislation (”think international, act local“).“Google Scholar

92 It has to be taken into account, that a transformation of the Consumer Sales Directive (1999/44/EC) limited to consumer contracts would have led to an unbearable fragmentation of the German civil law codification “BGB”. Therefore, the German legislator decided to reform the general sales contract provisions in the BGB, which apply as well to consumer-to-consumer and business-to-business transactions. Thus the active consumer contracts, the regulation of which the Directive is heading for (see considerations 2-5 of the Directive), account for far less then one per cent of all covered transactions.Google Scholar

93 Directive 1999/44/EC: http://europa.eu.int/smartapi/cgi/sga_doc?smartapi!celexapi!prod!CELEXnumdoc&lg=en&numdoc=31999L0044&model=guichett Google Scholar

94 See Roth, , Europäischer Verbraucherschutz und BGB, Juristenzeitung 2001, 475, at 477 ff.Google Scholar

95 See Raz, J., The Rule of Law and ist virtue, 93 Law Quarterly Review (1977) 195-202.Google Scholar

96 See von Bar/Lando/Swann, Communication on European Contract Law: Joint Response of the Commission on European Contract Law and the Study Group on a European Civil Code, ERPL 2002, 182, 230 (paragraph 84).Google Scholar

97 See Action Plan COM(2003) 68 final, Paragraph 14.Google Scholar

98 Refering to the German saying: “To tackle the Devil with Beelzebub” (the prince of the devils)Google Scholar

99 The Green Paper in ist introduction simply states: ”The present document does not intend to examine the relationship between a possible future instrument and the Internal Market rules. For the Commission it is clear, however, that such an instrument should leave intact the principles of the Internal Market laid down in the Treaty or in secondary legislation.“Google Scholar

100 In the Isle-of-Man Case decided by the FCJ (BGHZ 135, 124), for instance, the lower Courts had not even tried to solve the case under the laws of the Isle-of-Man. The whole argument was just about the applicability of the German protection rules. Thus, the FCJ in its decission simply presumed, that the contract would be enforceable under the law of the Isle-of-Man (at II 2 and 3).Google Scholar

101 For a very good analysis and a sceptical result with regard to the prerequisites of a competition in both mandatory as well as dispositive private law see Kieninger, Wettbewerb der Privatrechtsordnungen im Europäischen Binnenmarkt, 2002 Google Scholar

102 See for the following ideas Grundmann (supra note 13), especially in RIW 2002.Google Scholar

103 See Grundmann, Europäisches Verbrauchervertragsrecht im Spiegel der ökonomischen Theorie – Vertragsinformationsrecht im Binnenmarkt, in: Ott/Schäfer (ed.), Vereinheitlichung und Diversität des Zivilrechts in transnationalen Wirtschaftsräumen, 2002, 284 ff.Google Scholar

104 See for potential inverse effects of consumer protection only: Joerges, Verbraucherschutz als Rechtsproblem, 1981, p. 127; Schäfer, in: Grundmann (ed.), Systembildung und Systemlücken in Kerngebieten des Europäischen Privatrechts, 2000, p. 559 ff.Google Scholar

105 See Ferrari, in: Schlechtriem (ed.), CISG-Kommentar, 3rd ed. 2000, Art 2 N. 15 ff.Google Scholar

106 Which interpretation builds on the report of Guliano/Lagarde (OJ C 282 of 31/10/1980 S. 1-50): see Magnus, in: Staudinger (2002), Art. 29 EGBGB N. 38; Heiss, in: Czernich/Heiss, EVÜ, Art. 5 N. 8; Glatt, Internetverträge, 2002, p. 105–109; Foss/Bygrave, International Consumer Purchases Trough the Internet, International Journal of Law and IT 2000 8(99), all with further references.Google Scholar

107 See Spindler/Börner (eds.), E-Commerce Recht in Europa und den USA, 2003, at 281.Google Scholar

108 An exception may be a characteristic performance, which usually can be used for private use only, or a contract, where the volume or value usually is only demanded by businesses: see Ferrari, in: Schlechtriem (ed.), CISG-Kommentar, 3rd ed. 2000, Art 2 N. 17 f.; However, the majority of all products and services can be used for private and/or professional use. Thus, there should be a clear distinction in advance, based on the external circumstances or the representations of the parties.Google Scholar

109 See www.dell.co.uk Google Scholar

110 See the detailed analysis at Calliess, Nach der Schuldrechtsreform: Perspektiven des Verbrauchervertragsrechts, Archiv für die Civilistische Praxis (AcP) 203 (2003), forthcoming.Google Scholar

111 See supra para. 38 with note 85Google Scholar