Annex I al1 9.
||National ID||Consumer Protection Board|
|Common name||Consumer Protection Board||Decision type||Administrative decision, first degree|
|Court||Tarbijakaitseamet (Tallinn)||Plaintiff(s)||Estonian Consumer Protection Board|
|Court translation||Estonian Consumer Protection Board (Tallinn)||Defendant(s)||OÜ Foods & Motell|
|Keywords||black list, illegal products, legal rights, misleading commercial practices|
+ Expand all
(1) The offering of products without necessary registration, in addition to breaching the legal requirement of registration, can also be regarded as a misleading commercial practice as the trader sells products which it cannot legally sell.
(2) The use of sales conditions which are in conflict with mandatory statutory rights granted to consumers can be regarded as a misleading commercial practice, in addition to the fact that relying upon such sales conditions by the trader is not possible anyway.
The defendant had not registered itself as a trader in the Register of Economic Activities, as required by mandatory provisions of Estonian law.
The defendant’s internet store was missing specific instructions for making a purchase, which are required by law in case of internet stores. Additionally, the defendant had not published the transport or postal fees for shipping the products, which is another mandatory requirement by law.
According to the law, in case of internet sale, the consumer is entitled to withdraw from the contract and return the purchased product in a certain period following the receipt of the product. The said right of the consumer was explicitly excluded in the sales conditions of the defendant. The sales conditions were also in conflict with the regulation concerning the return of defected products.
(1) Can the offer of products without necessary registration, in addition to breaching the legal requirement of registration, also be regarded as a misleading commercial practice, as the trader sells products which it cannot legally sell?
(2) Can the use of sales conditions which are in conflict with mandatory statutory rights granted to consumers be regarded as a misleading commercial practice, in addition to the fact that relying upon such sales conditions by the trader is not possible anyway?
(1) The Consumer Protection Board referred to Art. 12.3 Sect. 8 Clause 9 of the Estonian Consumer Protection Act, which sets forth that stating or otherwise creating the impression that a product or service can legally be sold when it cannot constitutes an unfair commercial practice, hence a prohibited practice. Offering products without required registration therefore constitutes unfair practice, the Board held.
(2) Next, the Board reminded that a commercial practice is deemed misleading if it includes presenting misinformation. Incorporating conditions in conflict with statutory rights of the consumer to the sales conditions of the trader may also be regarded as presenting misinformation to the consumers and is therefore regarded as misleading commercial practice.
|URL Decision||Decision full text|
The defendant was obligated to cease all commercial activity until the issues above had been corrected.
|There is no events for this case.|
|National ID||Common Name||Subject||Country||Link type|
|There is no related cases for this case.|
|There is no Legal Literature for this case.|