Article 6 1.
|National ID||Slovak Trade Inspection, 27/03/2013, ref. code: P/0505/04/12|
|Common name||Slovak Trade Inspection, 27/03/2013, ref. code: P/0505/04/12||Decision type||Administrative decision, first degree|
|Court||Slovenská obchodná inšpekcia, Inšpektorát Slovenskej obchodnej inšpekcie v Nitre pre Nitriansky kraj||Plaintiff(s)||Unknown|
|Court translation||Slovak Trade Inspection, Inspectorate of the Slovak Trade Inspection in Nitra for the Nitra Region||Defendant(s)||REGIONAL CLIENTIS s.r.o.|
|Keywords||terms & conditions, contract law, material information, misleading commercial practices, misleading omissions, misrepresentation, price|
+ Expand all
Does substantially limiting the consumer's rights in a terms and conditions document, which is not clearly notified to the consumer, constitute an unfair commercial practice?
The administrative body established that the defendant concluded contracts with consumers which included several provisions causing considerable unbalance between the rights and obligations of the parties, and this to the detriment of the consumer.
The Terms and Conditions which formed a part of the contract concluded between the defendant and the consumer included several provisions that were not drafted clear and unambiguous (e.g. the fee that the consumer was obliged to pay to the trader was increased by current tax rate etc.).
The Terms and Conditions also contained a provision that obliged the consumer to pay specific monthly fees. The monthly fee consisted of the purchase price of the product divided by the number of months of repayment.
In advertisements published several times in press channels, the defendant presented its services as a standard loan, omitted material information regarding the product, such as its availability or risks connected with it.
The defendant neither informed consumers about the structure and amount of monthly fee to be paid to the trader.
Substantially limiting the consumer's rights in a terms and conditions document, which is not clearly notified to the consumer, constitutes an unfair commercial practice.
The administrative body ruled that the practices mentioned above amounted to unfair commercial practices, as the consumer was not clearly informed on the limitations of its rights.
|URL Decision||Decision full text|
The administrative body imposed a fine of € 25.000.
|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.|