European Commission

 

Case detail

B a c k

Directive article Article 2 (b)
Article 2 (d)
Article 2 (e)
Article 2 (h)
Article 6 1.
Article 6 1. (g)
Article 7 1.
Article 7 4. (b)
Article 7 4. (d)
Article 7 4. (e)
National ID Consumer Rights Protection Centre Decision No. E03-PTU-K49-14
Country Latvia Decision date 26/04/2012
Common name Decision type Administrative decision, first degree
Court Patērētāju Tiesību Aizsardzības Centrs (Rīga) Plaintiff(s) SIA „BPTBL”
Court translation Consumer Rights Protection Centre (Riga) Defendant(s) Consumer Rights Protection Centre
Subject misleading omissions
Keywords deliveryidentity of the traderinaccurate informationinternetinvoiceomissionpayment

+ Expand all

Headnote

(1) The omission to provide information that would help consumers to ascertain the ‘actual’ receiver of a payment and the ‘actual’ person responsible for the delivery of a purchase, constitutes a misleading commercial practice.

(2) The omission to provide information concerning the right of consumers to terminate the contract constitutes a misleading commercial practice.
 

Facts

The plaintiff is a trader who sells its products on the Internet.

Several consumers concluded a distance sales contract, purchasing products sold by the plaintiff.

The plaintiff accordingly sent the invoice to the e-mail address of customers and customers paid the respective price, however they did not receive the purchased goods within the period indicated by the plaintiff.

Consequently, some of the customers decided to terminate their contract and requested the plaintiff to repay the received amount of money.The plaintiff ignored this demand.

After examining the said event, the CRPC found the invoice to contain information according to which the payment had to be made to a bank account of another undertaking (SIA “AVIA LV”) and the same undertaking was designated to deliver the purchase.

This information, however, was not provided on the website of the plaintiff. Furthermore, the plaintiff did not include on the website information regarding the customer’s right to cancel the contract.
 

Legal issue

(1) Does omitting to provide the information that would help consumers to ascertain the ‘actual’ receiver of the payment and the ‘actual’ person responsible for the delivery of a purchase, constitute misleading commercial practice?

(2) Does omitting to provide the information concerning the right of consumers to terminate the contract constitute misleading commercial practice?
 

Decision

In its decision, the court found that by not informing the consumers that the payment is essentially made to the account of a third person and, thus, depriving consumers of the opportunity to ascertain the ‘actual’ person, which has the obligation to deliver the purchased goods in line with the concluded distance sale contract, the plaintiff did not comply with its duty to provide consumers with material information.

From the perspective of an average consumer, the plaintiff was perceived as the person receiving the payment and having the obligation to deliver the purchase.

Therefore, the omission to provide said information deceived the consumers as to the identity of the ‘actual’ person obliged to deliver the purchase and constituted misleading omission.

Secondly, the court established that by failing to provide information in respect of the right of consumers to terminate the contract, the plaintiff omitted material information and comitted a misleading commercial practice.
 

  URL Decision Decision full text
EN N/A
LV http://www.ptac.gov.lv/upload/ptac_lemumi/2012/izraksts_bptbl_lemums_26.04.2012.pdf

Result

The court held that the plaintiff was legally obliged to discontinue the unfair commercial practice by which the consumers might be misled regarding the person who is the receiver of the payment and who delivers the purchase and regarding the right of consumers to cancel the contract.

The plaintiff was penalized for committing an unfair commercial practice.
 

Additional information

Date Description URL
There is no events for this case.

Related case(s)

National ID Common Name Subject Country Link type
There is no related cases for this case.

Legal Literature

Title Author
There is no Legal Literature for this case.