Summary – Consumer Law and Regulation
21/22
1. CIVIL LAW V COMMON LAW...................................................................................................................... 2
2. PROPERTY LAW V CONTRACT LAW............................................................................................................. 2
2.1 PROPERTY LAW........................................................................................................................................ 3
2.1.1 OWNERSHIP.................................................................................................................................................4
2.1.2 RESERVATION OF OWNERSHIP/RETENTION OF TITLE..............................................................................................6
2.1.3 SECURITY RIGHT............................................................................................................................................7
2.2 CONTRACT LAW..................................................................................................................................... 10
2.2.1 OBLIGATIONS..............................................................................................................................................12
2.2.2 STANDARD CONTRACT TERMS/GENERAL CONDITIONS..........................................................................................14
2.2.3 CONTRACTUAL CLAUSES................................................................................................................................15
2.2.4 AGREEMENTS..............................................................................................................................................15
2.3 CASES..................................................................................................................................................... 16
1. SHARPE V THOMSON 1997 (W1/W8)................................................................................................................16
2. KLEIN V RHODOS 2005 (W2)............................................................................................................................16
3. LINDENBAUM V COHEN 1919.............................................................................................................................17
4. WALFORD V MILES 1992 (W3)..........................................................................................................................18
5. PLAS V VALBURG 1982.....................................................................................................................................19
6. BARIS V RIEZENKAM 1957.................................................................................................................................19
7. SALADIN V HBU 1967 (W4).............................................................................................................................20
8. ERMES V HAVILTEX 1982 (W4)..........................................................................................................................21
9. BLAAUBOER V BERLIPS 1905(W6)......................................................................................................................21
10. NEDBULA BV V DONKERLAAR 2006 (W6)..........................................................................................................22
11. COFACE V INTERGAMMA 2014 (W6)................................................................................................................23
12. ORYX V EESTEREN 2004 ( W6)........................................................................................................................24
13. DAMHOF V STAAT 1950 (W6).........................................................................................................................24
14. LIQUIDATEUR JUDICIARE CONSTRUCION NAVALES D’AQUITAINE V SOFICE 1991 (W6).................................................25
15. ARMOUR V THYSSEN EDELSTAHLWERKE 1990 (W7).............................................................................................26
16. HINCK V VAN DER WERF (W7).........................................................................................................................27
17. BRANDSMA V HANSA 1998 (W7).....................................................................................................................27
18. AIV V ROMALPA 1976 (WIDE APPROACH IN NL) (W7).........................................................................................28
19. KEEREWEER V SOGELEASE (W8)........................................................................................................................29
Harmonization and unification
• Harmonization: The process by which member states of the EU make
changes in their national laws, in accordance with Community
legislation, to produce uniformity, particularly relating to commercial
matters of common interest. Avoids complete uniformity, primarily
concerned with approximating the fundamental principles of national
laws (directives).
• Unification: New law completely replaces the national laws that have
existed before. Works towards complete unity in substance and detail
(regulation).
• No absolute unified EU law
• Difficult for business
• Contracts always state which law is applicable in case of conflict
• Difficult for cultural reasons
,• Consumer law is harmonized in the EU; harmonization of standards,
codes of conduct and good practices
1. Civil law v Common law
Common Law Civil Law
Case law is the main source of Codified statutes predominate
law (legislation
Customary law Based on Roman Law
On the basis of English Continent
customs Strict approach
Wide approach Property law
a division between common Institutional structure –
law (a different meaning) and persons, property obligations,
equity – trusts (formed by actions - which provides the
agreement between owners of a systematic framework for
property or business and a deductive reasoning (from the
trustee or group of trustees. rule down to the (decision on
The trustees hold legal title to the) facts.
all property of the business and Scholarly work
manage its affairs) are the main Specific performance remedy
product of equity which Reasonable and fairness
bewilder the civilian. (bona fidus) laid down in
Reasoning is inductive, from codification
the facts to the rule (bottom up) Intention
No scholarly laws
Damages remedy
No reasonableness and
fairness
Text
2. Property law v Contract law
Contract law Property law
Dispositive (autonomy Mandatory – third party
of contractual parties) reliance
Agreements Specific and general specific
Jurisdiction Lex contractus: court Lex situs: court decides & law
and law agreed upon applies where property is
applies situated
The involved specific parties under no obligations but erga
persons the contract omnes force, certainty for
= privity of contract third parties
doctrine
The level of specificity of the object Principle of specificity: for
specificity of – for parties’ lower others property laws need
the right and level suffices (I sell you to be in a far more specific
its object my house – others object – I transfer you my
would not know house in Briltil, kadastrial
whether my house is in section K6789)
, Zierikzee or in
Roodeschool) –
The level of Not necessary Requirement since third
publicity parties need to be able to
know who owner/holder of
the hypotheca is. So
registration in public
registers is needed.
The available Indefinite number: Closed number = numerus
rights in a freedom of contract clausus
jurisdiction
The Trust and equity Ownership is the most
characteristics extensive right in an
of ownership object; it works against all;
it has undefined powers to
use, to dispose, acquire,
and priority rule.
The transfer of Remain between Priority rule: absolute,
rights contracting parties priority over younger
(personal) property rights, follow the
object
Common law v Common law: text Common law: equity and
civil law matters trust
Civil law: intention Civil law: ownership
matters
Principles Principle of Principle of specificity
determinability Principle of unity
Principle of conformity Principle of publicity
Principle of priority
Priority rule No Yes
Property rights other than
ownership are created out
of the powers of the owner
(– and consequently follow
the lines of use and
dispose) and are therefore
following the rule of
priority; the oldest
property right in the same
object has priority.
Mortgage 1 comes first
(gets paid out of the
proceeds of the sale) then
mortgage 2.
2.1 Property Law
a. Lex situs: court decides & law applies where property is situated
b. Public policy: third party reliance
21/22
1. CIVIL LAW V COMMON LAW...................................................................................................................... 2
2. PROPERTY LAW V CONTRACT LAW............................................................................................................. 2
2.1 PROPERTY LAW........................................................................................................................................ 3
2.1.1 OWNERSHIP.................................................................................................................................................4
2.1.2 RESERVATION OF OWNERSHIP/RETENTION OF TITLE..............................................................................................6
2.1.3 SECURITY RIGHT............................................................................................................................................7
2.2 CONTRACT LAW..................................................................................................................................... 10
2.2.1 OBLIGATIONS..............................................................................................................................................12
2.2.2 STANDARD CONTRACT TERMS/GENERAL CONDITIONS..........................................................................................14
2.2.3 CONTRACTUAL CLAUSES................................................................................................................................15
2.2.4 AGREEMENTS..............................................................................................................................................15
2.3 CASES..................................................................................................................................................... 16
1. SHARPE V THOMSON 1997 (W1/W8)................................................................................................................16
2. KLEIN V RHODOS 2005 (W2)............................................................................................................................16
3. LINDENBAUM V COHEN 1919.............................................................................................................................17
4. WALFORD V MILES 1992 (W3)..........................................................................................................................18
5. PLAS V VALBURG 1982.....................................................................................................................................19
6. BARIS V RIEZENKAM 1957.................................................................................................................................19
7. SALADIN V HBU 1967 (W4).............................................................................................................................20
8. ERMES V HAVILTEX 1982 (W4)..........................................................................................................................21
9. BLAAUBOER V BERLIPS 1905(W6)......................................................................................................................21
10. NEDBULA BV V DONKERLAAR 2006 (W6)..........................................................................................................22
11. COFACE V INTERGAMMA 2014 (W6)................................................................................................................23
12. ORYX V EESTEREN 2004 ( W6)........................................................................................................................24
13. DAMHOF V STAAT 1950 (W6).........................................................................................................................24
14. LIQUIDATEUR JUDICIARE CONSTRUCION NAVALES D’AQUITAINE V SOFICE 1991 (W6).................................................25
15. ARMOUR V THYSSEN EDELSTAHLWERKE 1990 (W7).............................................................................................26
16. HINCK V VAN DER WERF (W7).........................................................................................................................27
17. BRANDSMA V HANSA 1998 (W7).....................................................................................................................27
18. AIV V ROMALPA 1976 (WIDE APPROACH IN NL) (W7).........................................................................................28
19. KEEREWEER V SOGELEASE (W8)........................................................................................................................29
Harmonization and unification
• Harmonization: The process by which member states of the EU make
changes in their national laws, in accordance with Community
legislation, to produce uniformity, particularly relating to commercial
matters of common interest. Avoids complete uniformity, primarily
concerned with approximating the fundamental principles of national
laws (directives).
• Unification: New law completely replaces the national laws that have
existed before. Works towards complete unity in substance and detail
(regulation).
• No absolute unified EU law
• Difficult for business
• Contracts always state which law is applicable in case of conflict
• Difficult for cultural reasons
,• Consumer law is harmonized in the EU; harmonization of standards,
codes of conduct and good practices
1. Civil law v Common law
Common Law Civil Law
Case law is the main source of Codified statutes predominate
law (legislation
Customary law Based on Roman Law
On the basis of English Continent
customs Strict approach
Wide approach Property law
a division between common Institutional structure –
law (a different meaning) and persons, property obligations,
equity – trusts (formed by actions - which provides the
agreement between owners of a systematic framework for
property or business and a deductive reasoning (from the
trustee or group of trustees. rule down to the (decision on
The trustees hold legal title to the) facts.
all property of the business and Scholarly work
manage its affairs) are the main Specific performance remedy
product of equity which Reasonable and fairness
bewilder the civilian. (bona fidus) laid down in
Reasoning is inductive, from codification
the facts to the rule (bottom up) Intention
No scholarly laws
Damages remedy
No reasonableness and
fairness
Text
2. Property law v Contract law
Contract law Property law
Dispositive (autonomy Mandatory – third party
of contractual parties) reliance
Agreements Specific and general specific
Jurisdiction Lex contractus: court Lex situs: court decides & law
and law agreed upon applies where property is
applies situated
The involved specific parties under no obligations but erga
persons the contract omnes force, certainty for
= privity of contract third parties
doctrine
The level of specificity of the object Principle of specificity: for
specificity of – for parties’ lower others property laws need
the right and level suffices (I sell you to be in a far more specific
its object my house – others object – I transfer you my
would not know house in Briltil, kadastrial
whether my house is in section K6789)
, Zierikzee or in
Roodeschool) –
The level of Not necessary Requirement since third
publicity parties need to be able to
know who owner/holder of
the hypotheca is. So
registration in public
registers is needed.
The available Indefinite number: Closed number = numerus
rights in a freedom of contract clausus
jurisdiction
The Trust and equity Ownership is the most
characteristics extensive right in an
of ownership object; it works against all;
it has undefined powers to
use, to dispose, acquire,
and priority rule.
The transfer of Remain between Priority rule: absolute,
rights contracting parties priority over younger
(personal) property rights, follow the
object
Common law v Common law: text Common law: equity and
civil law matters trust
Civil law: intention Civil law: ownership
matters
Principles Principle of Principle of specificity
determinability Principle of unity
Principle of conformity Principle of publicity
Principle of priority
Priority rule No Yes
Property rights other than
ownership are created out
of the powers of the owner
(– and consequently follow
the lines of use and
dispose) and are therefore
following the rule of
priority; the oldest
property right in the same
object has priority.
Mortgage 1 comes first
(gets paid out of the
proceeds of the sale) then
mortgage 2.
2.1 Property Law
a. Lex situs: court decides & law applies where property is situated
b. Public policy: third party reliance
