The Law Society has warned that plans to introduce a Common
European Sales Law (CESL) are unlikely to increase cross-border
trade and would prove costly and confusing.
In its response to the UK Government's call for evidence on the
EU's proposals, the Law Society says that the CESL is unnecessary
and is unlikely to support an increase in trade.
Law Society President John Wotton said: 'We are in favour of
breaking down barriers to trade in the interests of consumers and
businesses, but a new contract law instrument is not the
answer.
'There is ;a range of issues that determine whether or not
businesses and consumers engage in cross-border dealings, including
differences in language, packaging and labelling rules, advertising
laws and VAT rates, the difficulty of arranging delivery and
whether it will be possible to obtain practical redress if
something goes wrong. The differences in contract law are
among the least of businesses' and consumers' concerns and the
Commission's proposals will not address the more important
barriers.
'The CESL, designed to be an alternative set of rules within
each national system, would do quite the
opposite to simplifying trade and would not make
cross-border dealings easier. In fact, the CESL is likely to be
interpreted differently in each EU country which would lead to
diverging approaches.
'The CESL does not cover the whole of contract law, let alone
other areas of law, and it is not yet clear how it would operate at
a practical level. The Law Society believes that there would
be inevitable costs for businesses, as well as lawyers
and judges, in understanding the new instrument and its
application.'
In its response to the proposals, the Law Society says that
there are more important barriers to be addressed, such as
increasing access to practical redress in cross-border trade
involving businesses and consumers.
The impact of the Consumer Rights Directive, due to be
implemented shortly, must also first be assessed.Nevertheless, if
the initiative continues, the Law Society will provide constructive
input, as it has to date.
In preparing its response, the Law Society has consulted a broad
range of its membership, including solicitors from a variety of law
firms and in-house counsel.
Ends