The Law Society is concerned that EU
proposals for a Common European Sales Law could lead to
uncertainty for businesses and consumers.
We will consider carefully and in depth the European
Commission's proposal, which was announced yesterday. In the
current debate, we will endeavour to provide technical comments and
input from a practical perspective.
However, while we support efforts to improve the functioning of
the internal market and to increase cross-border trade, we are not
convinced that these proposals will achieve this. We note that
there are a range of issues that determine whether or not
businesses and consumers wish to engage in cross-border dealings,
including differences in language, VAT rates, and whether it will
be possible to obtain practical redress if something goes
wrong.
Law Society president John Wotton said:
'From a practical perspective, an 'optional instrument' (OI) of
contract law would have no underlying jurisprudence and
practitioners are concerned that this would lead to uncertainty for
businesses and consumers as to how it would be interpreted and
applied. Even once such a body of case-law had been developed
(requiring much litigation on the part of private parties), it
would be difficult to ensure the uniform application of the new
system across the 27 EU Member States with their different legal
cultures.
'The Society supports freedom of contract, but notes that on a
practical level there is a lack of clarity as to how parties would
opt for the OI and this would require resolution.
'In cross-border dealings, while there will be an agreement
between the parties, the laws in relation to a range of issues,
such as advertising, packaging requirements, product liability and
non-contractual representations, as well as tort law and property
law, may be equally relevant and important. It is also unlikely
that the instrument itself would be self-standing from a contract
law perspective. Businesses would therefore still need to consider
national laws when entering into cross-border contracts.'
We will continue to represent practitioners' views and engage in
the current debate as we have done throughout the consultation
process.
Read
more about this issue