Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-dsjbd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-26T04:19:09.682Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Consumer Protection in Private International Law

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  21 May 2009

J.G. Sauveplanne
Get access

Extract

In the modern law of obligations the protection of consumers is a phenomenon that is gaining ever increasing importance. It has also penetrated the realm of private international law (p.i.l.). Rules on the subject primarily deal with obligations arising out of contract; in this field specific p.i.l. rules envisage contracts concluded by consumers. In the field of non-contractual obligations no such specific rules have been framed as yet. However p.i.1. rules relating to products liability, although as a rule not limited to consumers but also including non-consumers, largely affect the first-mentioned class of persons and cannot be neglected in a paper dealing with consumer protection. In the present paper, therefore, attention will be focussed on p.i.l. rules relating to consumer contracts, and this will be followed by a brief account of p.i.l. rules on products liability as far as these are of importance for the protection of consumers.

Type
Articles
Information
Netherlands International Law Review , Volume 32 , Issue 1 , May 1985 , pp. 100 - 122
Copyright
Copyright © T.M.C. Asser Press 1985

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1. The rules examined in this paper are rules of p.i.l. including rules on choice of law and jurisdiction; attempts at unifying substantive law as, inter alia, made by the Council of Europe, will not be discussed.

2. Asser-Rutten, , Verbintenissenrecht (The Law of Obligations) 6th edn. (Zwolle 1982), p. 31Google Scholar.

3. See on this Strikwerda, L., Partij-autonomie en het Internationale Geval (Party-autonomy and the International Case), Studiekring-Offerhaus, IPR 12 (Deventer 1981)Google Scholar.

4. Hoge Raad 10 December 1976, in Chelouche v. Leer, Van, NJ 1977, 275Google Scholar; A Ae 1977, 197;RCDIP1978,97.

5. In the same vein von Hoffmann, B., “Übei den Schutz des Schwächeren bei Internationalen Schuldverträgen”, RabelsZ 1974, p. 396Google Scholar et seq.

6. BGBI 1976 I 3317; in force from 1 April 1977. Text reproduced in Handelingen NJV 1979,1, 1, p. 221 et seq.

7. 1977 Eliz. II, c. 50; in force from 1 February 1978. Text reproduced ibidem p. 229 et seq.

8. This opinion is reflected in the 6th proposition with a University thesis defended before the Law Faculty of Utrecht by E.F.J. Wilms on 4 April 1984. My opposition to this proposition gave rise to the present article.

9. In the same vein Kropholler, J., “Das Kollisionsrechtliche System des Schutzes des schwächeren Vertragspartei”, 42 RabelsZ (1978) p. 634Google Scholar et seq.

10. Kropholler, , p. 655, speaks of a “sozial geprägtes IPR”Google Scholar; see also Keller, M., Schutz des Schwächeren im internationalen Vertragsrecht, Festschrift-Vischer, (Zurich 1983), p. 175Google Scholar et seq., who speaks (179) of a “soziales Vertragsrecht” which penetrates p.i.l.

11. BGBI. 1978, 304; in force from 1 January 1979, Text reproduced in 43 RabelsZ (1979), p. 375 et seq.

12. Message còonccrnant une loi fédérale sur le droit international privé, 10 November 1982, Nr. 82072.

13. E.C. Official Journal 9 October 1980, Nr. L. 266, P.I.; Trbl. 1980, 156; WPNR 1980, 911;RCDIP 1980, 875.

14. Final Act of the Fourteenth Session (1980), sub B; NILR 1980, 408; RCDIP 1980 909.

15. This argument, advanced by Lando, O., “The EC Draft Convention on the Law Applicable to Contractual and Non-Contractual Obligations”, 38 RabelsZ (1974) p. 6Google Scholar et seq., is repeated by Stoll in his article quoted in the next note; it was already refuted in my contribution to the Copenhague Colloquium on the European Private Law of Obligations (Tübingen 1975) p. 189Google Scholar.

16. The sense of this control has been questioned; see, inter alia, Sonnenbergei, H.J., “Bemerkungen zum internationalen Privatrecht im AGB-Gesetz”, Festschrift-Ferid (Münich 1977) p. 377Google Scholar et seq; Stoll, H., “Internationalprivatrechtliche Probleme bei Verwendung Allgemeiner Geschäftsbedingungen”, Festschrift-Beitzke (Berlin, New York 1979) p. 759Google Scholar; Tebbens, H. Duintjer, “Statutory Controls on Standard Terms Employed in an International Context: is the Cure worse than the Disease?”, E Radice Arbor, Essays in Honour of Judge Erodes (The Hague 1983) p. 32Google Scholar et seq.

17. In the words of Kropholler, p. 656, the residuary law furnishes a “Mindeststandard”; see also Keller's proposal (pp. 185–6) not to limit the parties ‘freedom of choice’, but to give the consumer the right always to invoke the protective provisions of the law of his habitual residence.

18. This was already demonstrated by Kisch, I., “La loi la plus favorable”, Ius et Lex, Festschrift-Gutzwiller (Basel 1959) p. 373Google Scholar et seq., reproduced in Uitgelezen Opstellen [Selected Essays](Zwollc 1981) p. 223Google Scholar et seq.; in the same vein Keller, p. 178.

19. The importance of maintaining this equilibrium is emphasized by Malaurie, Ph., La protection du consommateur en droit international privé, Travaux de l'Association Henri Capitant 23 (1973) p. 389Google Scholar et seq.

20. See with regard to the Dutch draft bill on consumer sales Brack, A., “De begrippen consument en consumentenkoop” [The concepts of consumer and consumer sale], NJB 1982, p. 646Google Scholar et seq.

21. Duchek-Schwind, , Internationales Privatrecht (Vienna 1979) p. 91Google Scholar.

22. Hague Conf. Collection of Conventions (1951–1980), III p. (12); Trbl. 1955, 83; RCDIP 1964, 786.

23. Only the Austrian Act does not contain a special provision envisaging this situation, but it is explained in the memorandum that it should be deemed included in the rule; it was expressly included in the Hague draft on the initiative of the Austrian delegate.

24 Cheshire & Fifoot's Law of Contract, 10th edn. (London 1981) p. 168Google Scholar.

25. Borderline cases can present themselves, e.g., in which category falls a contract of carriage which provides for stop-overs? According to the memorandum the decision should be left to the discretion of the court.

26. Similarly Von Hoffmann, pp. 408–9.

27. See the present author's Elemental Internationaal Privaatrecht (Elements of P.I.L.), 7th edn. (Deventer 1982) p. 88Google Scholar.

28. See Cheshire & Fifoot, op.cit. Moreover, according to S. 26 the mandatory provisions of the Act do not apply to international supply contracts in which the parties have their places of business or habitual residences in different countries and certain other conditions are fulfilled. It is controversial whether or not this section also applies to consumer contracts; if so most international consumer sales would fall outside the scope of the Act's provisions,; see Tebbens, Duintjer, “Statutory Controls”, p. 41Google Scholar.

29. Parliamentary Papers, Draft Bill 16983, doc. 6. One may ask oneself whether it makes sense to give such a wide scope to these provisions, see for a critical note Vollebregts, J.E., “Wetsontwerp Algemene Voorwaarden” [Draft Bill on General Conditions], NJB 1984 p. 809Google Scholar et seq. (pp. 813–4). As a matter of fact, by the time of writing it had become uncertain whether the bill in its present form would be voted on by Parliament.

30. In the explanatory memorandum Art. 7, al. 2, is expressly invoked as a justification for extending the scope of Art. 13 of the Bill.

31. Hoge Raad 13 May 1966, in re Alnati, NJ 1967, 3Google Scholar; A Ae 1968, 342; RCDIP 1967, 522; NILR 1968, 82; Clunet 1969, 1010. In a later decision the rule is made subject to the qualification that it does not apply if the State, the law of which is normally applicable has such a strong interest in maintaining its undisturbed application, that it cannot tolerate inroads from foreign rules of law, Hoge Raad 12 January 1979, in re Sewrajsing, NJ 1980, 526Google Scholar; A Ae 1980, 254;RCDIP 1980,68.

32. E.C. Official Journal 31 December 1972, L 299, p. 32; Trbl. 1969, 101; RCDIP 1973, 131.

33. Thus an agreement on choice of forum is governed by the Convention if one of the parties is domiciled in the said area, irrespective of whether in a dispute he acts as claimant or defendant. The Convention uses the concept of domicile, but does not define it; in each case the place of domicile is determined by the domestic law of the forum (Art. 52).

34. 21 June 1978, in re Bertrand v. Paul Ott, Jur. 1978, 1431; NJ 1979, 115; see on this case, inter alia, Zanobetti, A., “Les Conventions communautaiies concernant la compétence judiciaire et l'exécution des décisions en matière civile et commerciale et la protection des consommateurs, Unification, Liber amicorum Sauveplanne (Deventer 1984) p. 299Google Scholar et seq.

35. E.C. Official Journal 30 October 1978, L 304, p. 1; Trbl. 1978, 175; see Verheul, J.P., Rechtsmacht in het Nederlandse IPR (Jurisdiction in Dutch P.I.L.), Vol. IGoogle Scholar, Het EEG Bevoegdheid- en Executieveidrag (The E.E.C.-Jurisdiction and Enforcement Convention), (Antwerp, Apeldoorn 1982) ad artt. 13 to 15 incl.

36. When both parties are domiciled in one and the same country they are also allowed to confer exclusive jurisdiction on the courts of that country; this situation is not likely to occur with regard to international consumer contracts, see Verheul, nrs. 96 & 101.

37. Doubts as to the compatibility with the Convention are also expressed by Schultsz, J.C., “The Dutch General Conditions Bill of 1981 – International Aspects”, Festschrift-Vischer, p. 293Google Scholar; et seq.; under Dutch constitutional law self-executing rules of an international treaty have priority over conflicting rules of domestic law.

38. Two recent University theses extensively deal with product liability in p.i.l. as well as in comparative law, viz., Tebbens, H. Duintjer, International Product Lia (Alphen aan den Rijn, The Hague 1979)Google Scholar and Fallon, M., Les accidents de la consommation et ledroit (Brussels 1982)Google Scholar.

39. A professional user may as well be in the position of the weaker party vis-à-vis a mass producer in a distant country whose product he has “to take it or to leave it”; the distinction between acts of consumption and of production is elaborated by Fallon, p. 43 et seq.

40. Hague Conf. Collection of Conventions (1951–1980), XXII (p. 192 et seq.); Trbl. 1974, 84; RCDIP 1972, 818; the other Contracting States are France, Norway and Yugoslavia.

41. See the survey by Duintjer Tebbens, p. 334 et seq.

42. Fallon, pp.289 & 321; see also Duintjer Tebbens, p. 342 et seq.

43. It may also be the case that the product is produced by a producer whose principal place of business is in the consumer's country; then also the law of the latter country governs the product liability claim.

44. At least as far as the producer of the final product is concerned. The producer of component parts who delivered these to the final producer may well have “marketed” them in the latter's country.