Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Art. 70–71: Incorporation and Making Available of Standard Contract Terms

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Contents and Effects of Contracts-Lessons to Learn From The Common European Sales Law

Part of the book series: Studies in European Economic Law and Regulation ((SEELR,volume 7))

  • 529 Accesses

Abstract

Incorporation of standard terms is a much-debated issue in almost all legal systems. Any legal instrument on contract law therefore must provide an answer as to when terms are incorporated – but answers may vary considerably from one legal system to the next. In this chapter the provisions of the – now withdrawn – proposal for a Common European Sales Law pertaining to the incorporation of standard terms will be compared to the incorporation rules in German and Dutch law. The term ‘incorporation rules’ will be used in a rather broad sense and include rules pertaining to the acceptance of standard terms imposed on the other party, to rules pertaining to surprising and unclear terms, and to rules requiring the party imposing the terms to give the other party a reasonable opportunity to become aware of their content. The focus will therefore be on Article 70 of the CESL and its functional equivalents in German and Dutch law. It is hoped that the European legislator may benefit from this analysis when developing rules on incorporation of standard terms for upcoming legal instruments, such as an instrument for the Digital Single Market.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 84.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts, OJ 1993, L 95/29.

  2. 2.

    On the battle of forms under CESL, see MBM Loos and HN Schelhaas, ‘Commercial sales: the Common European Sales Law compared to the Vienna Sales Convention’ (2013) 1 European Review of Private Law 114-116; MBM Loos, ‘Standard Terms Regulation in the Proposal for a Common European Sales Law. Comment to Nils Jansen’ (2012) 4 Zeitschrift für Europäisches Privatrecht 778–779.

  3. 3.

    Cf Loos/Schelhaas (n 2) 113.

  4. 4.

    See Article 87 of the Feasibility study. The Feasibility study was prepared by an Expert Group instigated by the European Commission to prepare a preliminary draft of what later became the proposal for a CESL. It is published by the European Commission as an annex to a report by the Commission and available online at www.ec.europa.eu/justice/contract/files/feasibility_study_final.pdf (last visited on 28 July 2015).

  5. 5.

    See critical M Gade, Allgemeine Geschäftsbedingungen im internationalen und europäischen Privatrecht (Berlin: Duncker & Humblot, 2014), p. 208ff, who mentions several techniques by which a similar result can be achieved under the CESL.

  6. 6.

    Cf. Article 16 CESL.

  7. 7.

    Article 20 CESL pertains to the arrangements for payment, delivery of the goods, supply of the digital content or performance of the related services and the time by which the trader undertakes to deliver the goods, to supply the digital content or to perform the related services, and, where applicable, the duration of the contract, the minimum duration of the consumer’s obligations or, if the contract is of indeterminate duration or is to be extended automatically, the conditions for terminating the contract. The information need only be given in so far as it is not already clear from the context – so no information needs to be given about the duration of the contract if it is clear that the contract is a one-off contract.

  8. 8.

    Cf. Article 24 CESL.

  9. 9.

    Cf. Articles 21 and 26 CESL.

  10. 10.

    Cf. Articles 22 and 27 CESL.

  11. 11.

    Cf. Articles 29, paragraph 3, 48 and 49 CESL.

  12. 12.

    Cf. extensively Loos (n 2) 780; in this sense also Gade (n 5), p. 120–121. Different apparently F Möslein, ‘Kontrolle vorformulierter Vertragsklauseln’ in M. Schmidt-Kessel (ed) Ein einheitliches Kaufrecht? Eine Analyse des Vorschlags der Kommission (2012) 274, who does not distinguish between B2B and B2C contracts, even though the scope of Article 70, paragraph 2, CESL is expressly limited to B2C contracts.

  13. 13.

    Article 82 CESL is restricted to B2C-contracts.

  14. 14.

    Directive 2011/83/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 October 2011 on consumer rights, amending Council directive 93/13/EEC and directive 1999/44/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council and repealing Council directive 85/577/EEC and directive 97/7/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council, [2011] OJ L 304/64.

  15. 15.

    For Germany, see § 312e BGB, for the Netherlands, see Article 6:230j BW.

  16. 16.

    Cf. § 305, paragraph 2, BGB. When determining whether or not a reasonable opportunity is offered to the other party to read the terms before the contract is concluded, the fact that the other party has a physical handicap is to be taken into account in so far as the party imposing the terms is aware of the handicap. See in particular § 305, paragraph 2, second sentence, BGB. Specific rules apply with regard to contracts pertaining to public transport, electricity, gas, telecommunication, postal services in so far as the other party has accepted the applicability of the terms and making them available to the other party before the contract is concluded is possible only with disproportionate difficulties for the party imposing the terms, see § 305a BGB.

  17. 17.

    BGH (Supreme Court) 18 June 1986, VIII ZR 137/85, NJW-RR 1987, 112.

  18. 18.

    Cf. P Ulmerand M Habersack in G Christensen, A Fuchs, M Habersack, C Schäfer, H Schmidt, A Witt (eds) Ulmer/Brandner/Hensen, AGB-Recht, Kommentar zu den §§ 305–310 BGB und zum UKlaG, 11th ed., no. 123 to § 305 BGB (Cologne,Verlag Dr. Otto Schmidt, 2011); J Becker in H.G. Bamberger, H. Roth (Herausgeber) (eds) Kommentar zum Bürgerlichen Gesetzbuch, Band 1, §§ 1–610, no. 47 to § 3–5 BGB. CISG (München: Verlag C.H. Beck, 2007).

  19. 19.

    Cf. Gade (n 5), p. 76, who suggest (p. 79) that the rules are slightly more relaxed in B2B-contracts, cf. Gade, p. 79.

  20. 20.

    Becker (n 18) no 45 to § 305 BGB. According to Gade (n 5) p. 79 in a B2B-contract the seller need to explicitly refer to the standard terms if he provides a copy thereof to the buyer together with the offer.

  21. 21.

    Cf. Ulmer and Habersack (n 18 above) no. 125 to § 305 BGB; Becker (n 18) no 47 to § 305 BGB.

  22. 22.

    Cf. Ulmer and Habersack (n 18) no 126 to § 305 BGB.

  23. 23.

    Cf. Ulmer and Habersack (n 18) no 127 to § 305 BGB; Becker (n 18) no 67 to § 305 BGB.

  24. 24.

    Cf. Ulmer and Habersack (n 18) no 101 to § 305 BGB; H. Schmidt, in: Ulmer/Brandner/Hensen 2011, no 14 to Anhangzu § 305 BGB; Becker (n 18) no. 45 to § 305 BGB; J Basedow in W Krüger (eds), Münchener Kommentar zum Bürgerlichen Gesetzbuch; Band 2 (Schuldrecht, Allgemeiner Teil, §§ 241–432), 6th ed. (München: C.H. Beck’sche Verlagsbuchhandlung, 2012) no 63 to § 305 BGB.

  25. 25.

    Cf. Schmidt (n 24) no. 14 to Anhang zu § 305 BGB; see also Becker (n 18 above) no. 61 to § 305 BGB.

  26. 26.

    Cf. Ulmer and Habersack (n 18) n. 145 to § 305 BGB.

  27. 27.

    Cf. Ulmer and Habersack (n 18) no 146 to § 305 BGB.

  28. 28.

    Under German law, this implies that the seller is not in breach of contract if he does not provide the standard terms (and therefore not liable in damages), but he may not invoke the terms. On the other hand: the buyer may invoke the terms if he so wishes, cf. Becker (n 18) no 41 to § 305 BGB.

  29. 29.

    Cf. Ulmer and Habersack (n 18) no 145 to § 305 BGB.

  30. 30.

    Cf. Ulmer and Habersack (n 18) no 147 to § 305 BGB.

  31. 31.

    Cf. Ulmer and Habersack (n 18) no 147a to § 305 BGB; Gade (n 5), p. 77.

  32. 32.

    Cf. Ulmer and Habersack (n 18) no 148 to § 305 BGB.

  33. 33.

    Cf. Ulmer and Habersack (n 18) no 149a to § 305 BGB; Gade (n 5), p. 83. See also § 312i paragraph 1 under (4) BGB. Ulmer and Habersack, no. 149a to § 305 BGB, argue that when the terms are relatively short, it suffices that the terms may be read from the screen without the possibility to download and print or save the terms; see differently, Gade (n 5), p. 84.

  34. 34.

    BGH 10 June 1999, VII ZR 170/98, NJW-RR 1999, 1246.

  35. 35.

    Cf. Ulmer and Habersack (n 18) nos 150–151 to § 305 BGB. Partly different Gade (n 5), p. 78, who argues that the question whether or not the terms are understandable belongs to the unfairness test of § 307 BGB.

  36. 36.

    Cf. Schmidt (n 24) no 15 to Anhang zu § 305 BGB.

  37. 37.

    BGH 21 June 1990, VII ZR 308/89, NJW 1990, 3197.

  38. 38.

    Cf. Ulmer and Habersack (n 18) no 152a to § 305 BGB.

  39. 39.

    Becker(n 18) no 66 to § 305 BGB; Gade (n 5), p. 79.

  40. 40.

    Basedow (n 24) no 87 to § 305 BGB.

  41. 41.

    Cf. Ulmer and Habersack (n 18)nos 101 and 155 to § 305 BGB.

  42. 42.

    Cf. Ulmer and Habersack (n 18) no 103 to § 305 BGB.

  43. 43.

    Cf. § 310, paragraphs 1 and 4, BGB. Cf. also Ulmer and Habersack (n 18) no 111 to § 305 BGB, and P. Ulmer and C. Schäfer, in: Ulmer/Brandner/Hensen 2011 (n 18) no 7 to § 310 BGB.

  44. 44.

    Ulmer and Schäfer (n 43) no 8 to § 310 BGB.

  45. 45.

    Cf. Ulmer and Habersack (n 18), no 169 to § 305 BGB; Becker (n 18) no 80 to § 305 BGB; Basedow (n 24) no 93 to § 305 BGB.

  46. 46.

    Basedow (n 24) no 63 to § 305 BGB.

  47. 47.

    Cf. Ulmer and Habersack (n 18) no 170 to § 305 BGB.

  48. 48.

    Cf. BGH 12 February 1992, VIII ZR 84/91, BGHZ 117, 190, NJW 1992, 1232.

  49. 49.

    Cf. Ulmer and Habersack (n 18) no 176 to § 305 BGB; Ulmer and Schäfer (n 43) no 30 to § 310 BGB; Basedow (n 24) no 97 to § 305 BGB.

  50. 50.

    OLG (Court of Appeal) Hamburg 19 September 1984, 5 U 56/84, ZIP 1984, 1241; cf. also Ulmer and Habersack (n 18) no 176 to § 305 BGB.

  51. 51.

    Cf. Ulmer and Habersack (n 18) no 170a to § 305 BGB.

  52. 52.

    BGH 22 March 1995, VIII ZR 20/94, NJW 1995, 1671, standing case law.

  53. 53.

    Basedow (n 24) no 104 to § 305 BGB.

  54. 54.

    Cf. Ulmer and Habersack (n 18) nos 173 and 174 to § 305 BGB.

  55. 55.

    Cf. Schmidt (n 24) no 16 to Anhang zu § 305 BGB.

  56. 56.

    Cf. Ulmer and Schäfer (n 43) no 6 to § 305c BGB; Schmidt (n 24) no 3 to § 305c BGB: Gade (n 5), p. 194–195.

  57. 57.

    Cf. Ulmer and Schäfer (n 43) nos 11 and 12 to § 305c BGB; Schmidt (n 24) no 11 to § 305c BGB.

  58. 58.

    Cf. Ulmer and Schäfer (n 43) no 13 to § 305c BGB; Basedow (n 24) no 6 to § 305c BGB; Schmidt(n 24) no 11 to § 305c BGB; Gade (n 5), p. 191.

  59. 59.

    Basedow (n 24) no 10 to § 305c BGB.

  60. 60.

    Schmidt (n 24) no 11 to § 305c BGB; Gade (n 5)., p. 192.

  61. 61.

    Basedow (n 24) no 11 to § 305c BGB; Schmidt (n 24) no 12 to § 305c BGB.

  62. 62.

    Basedow (n 24) no 11 to § 305c BGB; Schmidt (n 24) no 12 to § 305c BGB.

  63. 63.

    Cf. Ulmer and Schäfer (n 43)nos 13 and 23 to § 305c BGB; Schmidt (n 24) no 16 to § 305c BGB; Gade (n 5), p. 193. According to Basedow (n 24) no 8 to § 305c BGB, in such a case the term may even be considered as individually negotiated, implying that it also escapes from the unfairness test of § 3–7 BGB.

  64. 64.

    The priority between the sets of terms may also be made clear within the sets, ie the case where one set of terms indicates that another set of terms prevails over it, or that it prevails over another set of terms. Cf. Hof’s-Hertogenbosch 16 April 2013, ECLI:NL:GHSHE:2013:BZ7927 (Poly Products/Scheldebouw).

  65. 65.

    See MBM Loos, Algemenevoorwaarden 2nd ed (The Hague: Boom Juridische uitgevers, 2013) no 40.

  66. 66.

    Hof (Court of Appeal)’s-Gravenhage 24 August 2010, ECLI:NL:GHSGR:2010:BN7767, NJF 2010, 430 (Nature Food/Euronuts Notenveredelingsindustrie B.V.). See however different Hof Amsterdam 13 October 2005, TvC 2006/4, p 121 (Willems/NV Nuon Infra West).

  67. 67.

    Cf. Hof Arnhem-Leeuwarden (location Arnhem) 9 April 2013, ECLI:NL:GHARL:2013:BZ8218 (Adventure Bags/Kruidvat Retail). Even a party that indicates its agreement to an offer ‘subject to the standard terms, that I have not read’ is deemed to have accepted the standard terms, cf. Rechtbank (District Court, court of first instance) Arnhem 20 February 2008, ECLI:NL:RBARN:2008:BC5063, NJF 2008, 172 (Maintec Contracting B.V./Snijtech B.V.).

  68. 68.

    HR 2 December 2011, ECLI:NL:HR:2011:BT6684, NJ 2011, 574 (Linthorst Installatiebedrijf/Echoput Beheer).

  69. 69.

    Loos (n 65) no 62.

  70. 70.

    HR 2 February 2001, NJ 2001, 200 (Petermann/Frans Maas). See critical Loos (n 65) no 60.

  71. 71.

    Rechtbank Middelburg 13 July 2005, NJF 2005, 310 (C./Vlissingse Transportbeton Onderneming B.V.); different Rechtbank Haarlem 22 June 2005, Prg. 2005, 146 (X/ United Parcel Service Nederland B.V.).

  72. 72.

    See Hof Amsterdam 19 July 2011, LJN BU1561, NJF 2011, 476 (X/ Loonbedrijf Noord-Holland Noord B.V.); Rechtbank Rotterdam 12 April 2001, S&S 2002, 63 (Schepen Onderlinge Nederland/Machinefabriek Olthof).

  73. 73.

    HR 10 June 1994, NJ 1994, 611 (Van der Breggen/TNO); HR 19 December 1997, NJ 1998, 271 (Helpman/Imbema); Schelhaas, Algemene voorwaarden in handelstransacties, Studiekring ‘Prof. mr. J. Offerhaus’ (Deventer, Kluwer, 2011) 9.

  74. 74.

    Schelhaas (n 73) 9.

  75. 75.

    Hof Arnhem 5 November 2002, NJ 2003, 393 (Gerritsen/Garage Musterd Made B.V.); this is true even if the consumer previously had run a business, cf. Rechtbank Haarlem 12 December 2012, ECLI:NL:RBHAA:2012:BZ8783 (X c.s./Kortmann Art Packers & Shippers B.V.).

  76. 76.

    See for instance RHC Jongeneel in B Wessels, RHC Jongeneel, ML Hendrikse (eds), Algemene voorwaarden, 5th ed. (Deventer, Kluwer, 2010) no 6.9.; J Hijma, Algemene voorwaarden, Monografieën BW nr. B-55, 3rd ed. (Deventer, Kluwer, 2010) no. 20; Schelhaas (n 73) 6. Different: Loos (n 65) no 72.

  77. 77.

    Cf. Hof’s-Gravenhage 6 July 2004, NJ 2004, 483, TvC 2005/4, p. 189 (HCC/Dell Computer B.V. I); Hof Den Haag 22 March 2005, ECLI:NL:GHSGR:2005:AT1762, TvC 2005/4, p. 150 (HCC/Dell Computer B.V. II); Arbitrage Instituut Bouwkunst (arbitration court, in particular dealing with claims in cases with architects) 31 August 2010, Tijdschrift voor Bouwrecht 2010, 223; different Rechtbank Arnhem 17 May 2006, NJF 2006, 479 (Berendsen Textiel Service B.V./Wetro B.V.).

  78. 78.

    Loos (n 65) no 56; Hijma (n 76) no 20.

  79. 79.

    Cf. Loos (n 65) nos 73–74.

  80. 80.

    HR 17 December 1999, NJ 2000, 140 (Breg/Makelaardij Asper).

  81. 81.

    See, however, below (Sect. 11.3.4) for exceptions.

  82. 82.

    In 2009, more lenient rules have been introduced where the terms are introduced by a service provider, see articles 6:230a-230f BW (implementation of the Services Directive).

  83. 83.

    See the parliamentary proceedings, available in WHM Reehuis, EE Slob (red.); C.J. van Zeben, J.W. du Pon (eindred.), 1990, Parlementaire geschiedenis van het nieuwe Burgerlijke Wetboek, Invoering Boeken 3, 5 en 6; Boek 6, Algemeen gedeelte van het verbintenissenrecht. Deventer: Kluwer, p. 1581, 1585 (hereinafter referred to as: Parl. Gesch. Inv. Boek 6).

  84. 84.

    HR 11 July 2008, ECLI:NL:HR:2008:BD1394, NJ 2008, 416 (Lommerse-Uitendaal/Atria Watermanagement)

  85. 85.

    HR 21 September 2007, ECLI:NL:HR:2007:BA9610, NJ 2009, 50 (Kwekerij de Engel/Enthoven Electra); HR 11 July 2008, ECLI:NL:HR:2008:BD1394, NJ 2008, 416 (Lommerse-Uitendaal/Atria Watermanagement).

  86. 86.

    HR 1 October 1999, NJ 2000, 207 (Geurtzen/Kampstaal).

  87. 87.

    See Article 6:234, paragraphs 2 and 3, BW.

  88. 88.

    Hijma 2010 (n 76 above) no 41a.

  89. 89.

    HR 11 February 2011, NJ 2011, 571, ECLI:NL:HR:2011:BO7108 (First Data B.V./KPN Hotspots Schiphol B.V.).

  90. 90.

    Cf. Loos (n 65) no 241; AS Hartkamp and CH Sieburgh, mr. C. Asser’s Handleiding tot de beoefening van het Nederlands burgerlijk recht; Verbintenissenrecht, deel 6-III*: Algemeen Overeenkomstenrecht, 13th ed. (Deventer: Kluwer, 2010) no 482.

  91. 91.

    Cf. Hijma (n 76) no 42; Jongeneel (n 76) no 16.2; Loos (n 65) no 160.

  92. 92.

    See for instance Rechtbank. Nijmegen 23 January 1998, NJkort 1998, 27 (Citizen Watch Europe GmbH/Van Hout-Ververgaard B.V.) in a case where the letters were 1 mm small and between the lines also only 1 mm space was provided; Rechtbank Utrecht 29 February 2012, ECLI:NL:RBUTR:2012:BV8187, NJF 2012, 151 (X/Leensysteem B.V.), where the letters were even smaller.

  93. 93.

    Loos (n 65) no 161.

  94. 94.

    The idea behind the exclusion is that international commerce should not be burdened with the requirements of this section, as it should not be made unattractive to Dutch companies to opt for their own legal system as the applicable law. See critical on this Loos (n 65) no 33; Schelhaas (n 73) p 8–9, 32 and 41–42; Hijma (n 76) no 6.

  95. 95.

    Cf. Parl. Gesch. Inv. Boek 6 (n 81) p 1816; Asser-Hartkamp-Sieburgh 6-III*, nr. 511; Loos (n 65) no 34.

  96. 96.

    Loos (n 65) no 34.

  97. 97.

    HR 20 November 1981, NJ 1982, 517 (Holleman/De Klerk). In this sense also HR 1 July 1993, NJ 1993, 668 (Bouma/Cavo).

  98. 98.

    Loos (n 65) no 34; Hijma (n 76) no 49.

  99. 99.

    For the purposes of Article 6:235, paragraph 1, BW, a cleaner which is employed by a cleaning company but who is in fact regularly cleaning at the offices of the contracting party is considered to be employed by the contracting party. Similarly, any person working on the basis of a part-time employment contract is counted as a full person. See further Loos (n 65) nos 80–84.

  100. 100.

    Asser-Hartkamp-Sieburgh 6-III*, no 489; Jongeneel (n 74) no 9.3; Schelhaas (n 73) p 18, 39–40; Loos (n 65)nos 86–87, all with further references.

  101. 101.

    HR 15 October 2004, ECLI:NL:HR:2004:AP1664, NJ 2005, 141 (GTI Zwolle/Zürich Versicherungsgesellschaft)

  102. 102.

    See critical on the inconsistencies in the approach to international and national commercial contracts Loos (n 65) no 35.

  103. 103.

    In this sense, CESL is not less unclear as other existing international legal systems: such clarity is not provided by the Draft Common Frame of Reference or the Vienna Sales Convention either. See Loos (n 2) p 779.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Centre for the Study of European Contract Law, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands

    Marco Loos

Authors
  1. Marco Loos
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Marco Loos .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Groningen Centre for Law and Govern, University of Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands

    Aurelia Colombi Ciacchi

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2016 Springer International Publishing Switzerland

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Loos, M. (2016). Art. 70–71: Incorporation and Making Available of Standard Contract Terms. In: Colombi Ciacchi, A. (eds) Contents and Effects of Contracts-Lessons to Learn From The Common European Sales Law. Studies in European Economic Law and Regulation, vol 7. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-28074-5_11

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-28074-5_11

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-319-28072-1

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-319-28074-5

  • eBook Packages: Law and CriminologyLaw and Criminology (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation