Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Control of Price Related Terms in Standard Form Contracts in the Netherlands: Exclusion of Clauses Pertaining to the Core of the Contract

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Control of Price Related Terms in Standard Form Contracts

Part of the book series: Ius Comparatum - Global Studies in Comparative Law ((GSCL,volume 36))

  • 363 Accesses

Abstract

In the 1970s, most European countries adopted legislation on unfair contract terms. Clauses pertaining to the core of the contract were usually exempted from this control. The fear of a return to the ancient iustum pretium doctrine was behind this. Not every country has adopted this exception. The Nordic states, for example, have declined to do so. This paper will briefly study the Nordic system to highlight that excluding the price clauses is not a necessity. It will then focus on giving a closer look at the Dutch system of control. The freedom of contracts principle, as well as the Dutch control of both unfair contract terms and price terms will be presented. The most important Dutch cases will also be studied.

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 169.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 219.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 219.99
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.

    Act of 9 December 1976, Bundesgesetzblatt I, p. 3317, in force as of 1 April 1977.

  2. 2.

    As of 1 January 2002, Para 305-310 BGB.

  3. 3.

    See Hondius (1978b), Unfair terms in consumer contracts, p. 283.

  4. 4.

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

  5. 5.

    There still remain some jurisdictions in Europe, such as Catalonia and the Channel Islands, where at least until recently courts were empowered to adapt contract prices to market value. In the Netherlands this iustum pretium doctrine has never played a major role. See Van Loo (2013), p. 341.

  6. 6.

    See Atamer (2017), pp. 624–660.

  7. 7.

    Hartkamp (2016), pp. 171–199, De Laat (2016), Hijma (2016), Van Wechem (2007).

  8. 8.

    See Loos (2018), pp. 1–58, Pavillon (2011), pp. 67–136, The division of contract rules in two different books has recently been criticised Hondius (2017), pp. 77–81.

  9. 9.

    Gesetz zur Regelung des Rechts der Allgemeinen Geschäftsbedingungen (1976), renumbered Paragraphs 305–310 Bürgerliches Gesetzbuch in 2001. See Appenzeller (2017), p. 347.

  10. 10.

    Asser/Hartkamp & Sieburgh 6-III, 2014/458-513.

  11. 11.

    Hondius (1998), pp. 201–227.

  12. 12.

    Hartkamp (2016), pp. 171–199.

  13. 13.

    Cherednychenko (2007), p. 575.

  14. 14.

    Private bill, introduced by the former Member of Parliament Femke Halsema (Green Party).

  15. 15.

    Fervers and Gsell (2019).

  16. 16.

    Translation by Warendorf et al. (2013), p. 1301.

  17. 17.

    CJEU Judgment of 27 June 2000, Océano Grupo Editorial and Salvat Editores, C-240/98, EU:C:2000:346.

  18. 18.

    Landelijk overleg vakinhoud civiel en kanton II, November 2014. A new edition of the recommendation was prepared in 2018.

  19. 19.

    See also Heesakkers/Voets, Hoge Raad 13 September 2013, ECLI:NL:HR:2013:691.

  20. 20.

    In the Proposal of the 11 October 2011 for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on a common European sales Law, it is likewise provided: ‘Art. 80 Exclusions from unfairness test: (…) (2.) Section 2 does not apply to the definition of the main subject matter of the contract, or to the appropriateness of the price to be paid in so far as the trader has complied with the duty of transparency set out in Article 82. (3.) Section 3 does not apply to the definition of the main subject matter of the contract or to the appropriateness of the price to be paid’.

  21. 21.

    Directive 2009/22/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2009 on injunctions for the protection of consumer’s interests, OJ 2009, L 110/30.

  22. 22.

    See Wessels and Pavillon (2017) pp. 469–485.

  23. 23.

    Hage (2017), p. 511.

  24. 24.

    Hoge Raad 19 September 1997, NJ 1998, 6, Assoud/De Nationale Sporttotalisator.

  25. 25.

    Hoge Raad 21 February 2003, NJ 2004, 567.

  26. 26.

    Hoge Raad 12 February 2016, ECLI:NL:HR:2016:236.

  27. 27.

    Conclusion Advocate-General Wissink, Hoge Raad 22 March 2013, ECLI:NL:HR:2013:BY8275.

  28. 28.

    Kantongerecht 11 July 1995, Praktijkgids 1996, 4480.

  29. 29.

    Rechtbank Amsterdam 23 February 2000, LJN AA5156.

  30. 30.

    Rechtbank Amsterdam 3 May 2000, LJN AA5674.

  31. 31.

    Hof Amsterdam 14 October 2008, LJN BF8807.

  32. 32.

    Hof ’s-Gravenhage 27 June 1996, NTBR 1996, p. 190.

  33. 33.

    Rechtbank Arnhem 19 May 2004, LJN AQ5066.

  34. 34.

    Rechtbank Amsterdam 12 July 2006, LJN AY3780.

  35. 35.

    Rechtbank Zwolle 19 October 2005, LJN AU5011.

  36. 36.

    Hof’s-Gravenhage 28 September 2006, LJN AY9089.

  37. 37.

    Kantongerecht Lelystad 4 October 2006, LJN AY9541.

  38. 38.

    Rechtbank Arnhem 18 April 2007, LJN BA5581.

  39. 39.

    Hof Leeuwarden 16 April 2008, LJN BC9764.

  40. 40.

    Rechtbank’s-Hertogenbosch 12 October 2011, LJN BT7310.

  41. 41.

    Rechtbank Amsterdam 20 September 2012, LJN BX7984.

  42. 42.

    Rechtbank’s-Hertogenbosch 9 February 2005, LJN AS6165; Hof Arnhem 28 August 2007, LJN BB4389; Rechtbank Amsterdam 3 February 2010, LJN BM6992; Hof Leeuwarden 3 August 2010, LJN BN3280; Hof Amsterdam 19 June 2006, LJN BW9637; Hof Amsterdam 30 September 2008, LJN BG2107; Hof’s.

  43. 43.

    Vriesendorp-van Seumeren (2002), pp. 177–208.

  44. 44.

    Rechtbank Rotterdam 31 August 2005, LJN AU1838.

  45. 45.

    Hoge Raad 12 February 2016, ECLI:NL:HR:2016:236.

  46. 46.

    Hof’s-Gravenhage 27 June 1996, NTBR 1996, p. 190; See Hoge Raad 21 September 2007, ECLI:NL:HR:2007:BA7627 exemption clause in contract terms of supplier of energy.

  47. 47.

    Other member states which have not taken over the core clause exclusion are mentioned in COM(2000) 248 final, p. 15.

  48. 48.

    Lag (1915:218) om avtal och andra rättshandlingar p förmögenhetsrättends område.

  49. 49.

    Lau Hansen (2005), pp. 267–279.

  50. 50.

    Wessels and Pavillon (2017), p. 885.

  51. 51.

    The exception is Van Loo (2013), p. 341. See Hondius (1978a), p. 956; Hartkamp (2016), p. 195.

References

  • Appenzeller C (2017) Die europäische AGB-Kontrolle. Nomos, Baden-Baden, p 347

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Asser/Hartkamp & Sieburgh 6-III, 2014/458-513

    Google Scholar 

  • Atamer YM (2017) Why judicial control of price terms in consumer contracts might not always be the right answer. Insights from behavioural law and economics. Modern Law Rev 80(4):624–660

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cherednychenko O (2007) Fundamental rights, contract law and the protection of the weaker party. A comparative analysis of the constitutionalisation of contract law, with emphasis on risky Financial transactions. Sellier, European Law Publishers, Utrecht, p 575

    Google Scholar 

  • De Laat S (2016) Naar zwarte, grijze en blauwe lijsten in het arbeidsrecht. Wolters Kluwer, Utrecht

    Google Scholar 

  • Fervers M, Gsell B (2019) Control of price related terms in standard form contract in Germany. In Atamer YM, Pichonnaz P (eds) Control of price related terms in standard form contracts. Springer, Cham, pp X-XX

    Google Scholar 

  • Hage CA (2017) Handhaving van privaatrecht door toezichthouders. Wolters Kluwer, Leiden, p 511

    Google Scholar 

  • Hartkamp AS (2016) Chapter 10. Law of obligations. In: Chorus J, Hondius E, Voermans W (eds) Introduction to Dutch law, 5th edn. Wolters Kluwer, Deventer, pp 171–199

    Google Scholar 

  • Hijma J (2016) Algemene voorwaarden, 4th edn. Wolters Kluwer, Deventer

    Google Scholar 

  • Hondius E (1978a) Standaardvoorwaarden, PhD. Wolters Kluwer, Deventer, p 956

    Google Scholar 

  • Hondius E (1978b) Unfair terms in consumer contracts. Molengraaff Instituut voor Privaatrecht, Utrecht, p 283

    Google Scholar 

  • Hondius E (1998) Freedom of contract and constitutional law in the Netherlands. In: Mordechai Rabello A, Sarcevic P (eds) Freedom of contract and constitutional law. Hebrew University, Jerusalem, pp 201–227

    Google Scholar 

  • Hondius E (2017) Contract of rechtshandeling: weeffout in het BW? In: Van de Pol F et al (eds) Vijftig weeffouten in het BW. Ars Aequi, Nijmege, pp 77–81

    Google Scholar 

  • Lau Hansen J (2005) Anvendensen af Aftalelovens §36 pÃ¥ vedtaegter/U 1998.281 H (BYG). In: Flodgren B et al (eds) Avtalslagen 90 Ã¥r/Aktuell nordisk rättspraxis. Norstedt Juridik AB, Stockholm, pp 267–279

    Google Scholar 

  • Loos M (2018) Algemene voorwaarden, 3rd edn. Boom, The Hague, p 493

    Google Scholar 

  • Pavillon CMDS (2011) Open normen in het Europees consumentenrecht: de oneerlijkheidsnorm in vergelijkend perspectief. Kluwer, Groningen

    Google Scholar 

  • Van Loo IH (2013) Vernietiging van overeenkomsten op grond van laesio enormis. Dwaling of misbruik van omstandigheden. Brave New Books, Rotterdam, p 341

    Google Scholar 

  • Van Wechem THM (2007) Toepasselijkheid van algemene voorwaarden. Wolters Kluwer, Deventer

    Google Scholar 

  • Vriesendorp-van Seumeren RM (2002) Algemene voorwaarden en verzekeringsrecht. Wolters Kluwer, Deventer, pp 177–208

    Google Scholar 

  • Warendorf H, Thomas R, Curry-Sumner I (eds) (2013) The Civil Code of the Netherlands. Wolters Kluwer, Alphen aan den Rijn, p 1301

    Google Scholar 

  • Wessels B, Pavillon CMDS (2017) Collectieve toetsing. In: Wessels B, Jongeneel RHC (eds) Algemene voorwaarden. Wolters Kluwer, Deventer, pp 469–485

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Utrecht University, Faculty of Law, Utrecht, Netherlands

    Ewoud Hondius

Authors
  1. Ewoud Hondius
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ewoud Hondius .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Faculty of Law, University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland

    YeÅŸim M. Atamer

  2. Faculty of Law, Istanbul Bilgi University, Istanbul, Turkey

    YeÅŸim M. Atamer

  3. Faculty of Law, University of Fribourg, Fribourg, Switzerland

    Pascal Pichonnaz

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2020 Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Hondius, E. (2020). Control of Price Related Terms in Standard Form Contracts in the Netherlands: Exclusion of Clauses Pertaining to the Core of the Contract. In: Atamer, Y.M., Pichonnaz, P. (eds) Control of Price Related Terms in Standard Form Contracts. Ius Comparatum - Global Studies in Comparative Law, vol 36. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-23057-9_19

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-23057-9_19

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-030-23056-2

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-030-23057-9

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

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation