EU to ban all shop refunds

http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/...l-shop-refunds

some "cat" must have taken a bribe from Silverline

;(

-

On Sun, 01 Nov 2009 23:59:54 GMT
Mark wrote:


EU to ban all shop refunds

http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/...l-shop-refunds

some "cat" must have taken a bribe from Silverline

;(

-


Strange this was a scoop for the Express, I'd have thought the
Torygraph would have front-paged it.
R.

On Mon, 2 Nov 2009 07:39:39 +0000, TheOldFellow
wrote:


Strange this was a scoop for the Express, I'd have thought the
Torygraph would have front-paged it.

It isn't a "scoop". It has been public knowledge for a year or so. It
refers to the abolition of the right of rejection of faulty goods
which, in Europe, is unique to the UK and its replacement by a more
continental procedure which allows the supplier to repair goods
instead.

On Mon, 02 Nov 2009 08:35:50 +0000
Peter Parry wrote:

On Mon, 2 Nov 2009 07:39:39 +0000, TheOldFellow
wrote:


Strange this was a scoop for the Express, I'd have thought the
Torygraph would have front-paged it.

It isn't a "scoop". It has been public knowledge for a year or so. It
refers to the abolition of the right of rejection of faulty goods
which, in Europe, is unique to the UK and its replacement by a more
continental procedure which allows the supplier to repair goods
instead.


So the net effect will be that the loopy women who take everything from
M&S home to try on, and then bring back the ones they don't like will be
stuffed. But anyone who really wanted the object in question will
guaranteed a working version - eventually. The issue then is the effect
on the DSR, which I depend on here in in Rural Cumbria. Sometimes you
just can't tell until you touch it.

R.

On Mon, 2 Nov 2009 09:38:55 +0000, TheOldFellow
wrote:

On Mon, 02 Nov 2009 08:35:50 +0000
Peter Parry wrote:

So the net effect will be that the loopy women who take everything from
M&S home to try on, and then bring back the ones they don't like will be
stuffed.

Not really, that is a contractual agreement between M&S and it's
customers and will not be affected.

But anyone who really wanted the object in question will
guaranteed a working version - eventually.

As long as you don't mind your new oven having marks on it ("slight
blemishes" are excluded from the right to demand repair) and having
been in bits all over the floor while the repairer glued the bits that
fell off back on. Most people would consider "new" to mean just that,
not delivered broken and repaired in situ.

The issue then is the effect
on the DSR, which I depend on here in in Rural Cumbria. Sometimes you
just can't tell until you touch it.

Not much impact on those.

On Mon, 02 Nov 2009 10:46:03 +0000, Peter Parry wrote:

So the net effect will be that the loopy women who take everything
from
M&S home to try on, and then bring back the ones they don't like
will
be stuffed.

Not really, that is a contractual agreement between M&S and it's
customers and will not be affected.

As I read the linked article such "gold plating" by individual
sellers would also be banned.

I thought soem of the idea of "europe" was to take the best
legislation and bring other countries up to that nit bring everyone
down to the lowest...

--
Cheers
Dave.

We were somewhere around Barstow, on the edge of the desert, when the
drugs began to take hold. I remember "Dave Liquorice"
saying something like:

I thought soem of the idea of "europe" was to take the best
legislation and bring other countries up to that nit bring everyone
down to the lowest...

Eventually the whole continent will be like Germany - what else is new?

On Mon, 02 Nov 2009 11:33:46 +0000 (GMT), "Dave Liquorice"
wrote:

On Mon, 02 Nov 2009 10:46:03 +0000, Peter Parry wrote:

Not really, that is a contractual agreement between M&S and it's
customers and will not be affected.

As I read the linked article such "gold plating" by individual
sellers would also be banned.

The article was wrong. What a supplier wishes to offer as part of
the contract with the customer is up to them and will remain so.

I thought soem of the idea of "europe" was to take the best
legislation and bring other countries up to that nit bring everyone
down to the lowest..

This measure is being implemented as a "maximum harmonisation" measure
so member states cannot alter it or add to it. The UK enjoys somewhat
better consumer protection than most EU countries so a downgrading is
inevitable. The loss of the right to reject goods found faulty upon
delivery is only one of a number of "improvements" we will enjoy as
out Uroexperience is enhanced.

On Mon, 02 Nov 2009 14:36:08 +0000, Peter Parry wrote:

On Mon, 02 Nov 2009 11:33:46 +0000 (GMT), "Dave Liquorice"
wrote:

On Mon, 02 Nov 2009 10:46:03 +0000, Peter Parry wrote:

Not really, that is a contractual agreement between M&S and it's
customers and will not be affected.

As I read the linked article such "gold plating" by individual
sellers would also be banned.

The article was wrong. What a supplier wishes to offer as part of
the contract with the customer is up to them and will remain so.

I thought soem of the idea of "europe" was to take the best
legislation and bring other countries up to that nit bring everyone
down to the lowest..

This measure is being implemented as a "maximum harmonisation" measure
so member states cannot alter it or add to it. The UK enjoys somewhat
better consumer protection than most EU countries so a downgrading is
inevitable. The loss of the right to reject goods found faulty upon
delivery is only one of a number of "improvements" we will enjoy as
out Uroexperience is enhanced.

The question is, why does the EU feel the need to intefere with what refund
rules we have in the UK? If we simply declare that our internal legislation
will not affect mail order imports or exports then what we do here has no
impact whatsoever on any other European country at all, so why not leave it
alone? I have certainly bought good in the past that I definitely did not
want repairing - I bought a washing machine that had a major design fault:
when first used, the temperature control failed and either there was no
backup cut-out or it too failed; the water boiled and the escaping steam
melted the soap tray. I did not want such a hazard in the house and the
shop had no comparable machines, so I insisted on a full refund. Under the
proposed legislation, I would have had to either accept a repair (or a
lesser machine, if the "replacement" part of the legislation allows) or
lose £450.

SteveW

Steve Walker
wibbled on Monday 02 November 2009 20:20


The question is, why does the EU feel the need to intefere with what
refund rules we have in the UK? If we simply declare that our internal
legislation will not affect mail order imports or exports then what we do
here has no impact whatsoever on any other European country at all, so why
not leave it alone? I have certainly bought good in the past that I
definitely did not want repairing - I bought a washing machine that had a
major design fault: when first used, the temperature control failed and
either there was no backup cut-out or it too failed; the water boiled and
the escaping steam melted the soap tray. I did not want such a hazard in
the house and the shop had no comparable machines, so I insisted on a full
refund. Under the proposed legislation, I would have had to either accept
a repair (or a lesser machine, if the "replacement" part of the
legislation allows) or lose £450.

Or if they must, why not tell all the sub standards sods to get up to our
level (or whoever is doing the best at X).

I don;t see what can possibly be achieved by going for the lowest common
denominator - look at what the approach did to education.

--
Tim Watts

This space intentionally left blank...

"Steve Walker" wrote in message
.. .
On Mon, 02 Nov 2009 14:36:08 +0000, Peter Parry wrote:

On Mon, 02 Nov 2009 11:33:46 +0000 (GMT), "Dave Liquorice"
wrote:

On Mon, 02 Nov 2009 10:46:03 +0000, Peter Parry wrote:

Not really, that is a contractual agreement between M&S and it's
customers and will not be affected.

As I read the linked article such "gold plating" by individual
sellers would also be banned.

The article was wrong. What a supplier wishes to offer as part of
the contract with the customer is up to them and will remain so.

I thought soem of the idea of "europe" was to take the best
legislation and bring other countries up to that nit bring everyone
down to the lowest..

This measure is being implemented as a "maximum harmonisation" measure
so member states cannot alter it or add to it. The UK enjoys somewhat
better consumer protection than most EU countries so a downgrading is
inevitable. The loss of the right to reject goods found faulty upon
delivery is only one of a number of "improvements" we will enjoy as
out Uroexperience is enhanced.

The question is, why does the EU feel the need to intefere with what
refund
rules we have in the UK? If we simply declare that our internal
legislation
will not affect mail order imports or exports then what we do here has no
impact whatsoever on any other European country at all, so why not leave
it
alone? I have certainly bought good in the past that I definitely did not
want repairing -

Yep

If I but a new TV, I will be because I want a new TV TODAY. It wont be
because I want it in four weeks time after they have repaired it

tim

On Mon, 2 Nov 2009 20:20:18 +0000, Steve Walker
wrote:

On Mon, 02 Nov 2009 14:36:08 +0000, Peter Parry wrote:

This measure is being implemented as a "maximum harmonisation" measure
so member states cannot alter it or add to it. The UK enjoys somewhat
better consumer protection than most EU countries so a downgrading is
inevitable. The loss of the right to reject goods found faulty upon
delivery is only one of a number of "improvements" we will enjoy as
out Uroexperience is enhanced.

The question is, why does the EU feel the need to intefere with what refund
rules we have in the UK?

Because they say they think that cross border trade is severely
affected by differences in consumer law and if it is changed we will
all immediately start buying cheese from Bulgaria via mail order.
Alternatively they have been nobbled (again).

If we simply declare that our internal legislation
will not affect mail order imports or exports then what we do here has no
impact whatsoever on any other European country at all, so why not leave it
alone?

We can say what we like, the strings are attached and come the day we
will have no option but to dance to the Franco/German tune.

I have certainly bought good in the past that I definitely did not
want repairing - I bought a washing machine that had a major design fault:
when first used, the temperature control failed and either there was no
backup cut-out or it too failed; the water boiled and the escaping steam
melted the soap tray. I did not want such a hazard in the house and the
shop had no comparable machines, so I insisted on a full refund. Under the
proposed legislation, I would have had to either accept a repair (or a
lesser machine, if the "replacement" part of the legislation allows) or
lose £450.

Broadly, yes.

On Mon, 02 Nov 2009 20:24:08 +0000, Tim W wrote:


Or if they must, why not tell all the sub standards sods to get up to our
level (or whoever is doing the best at X).

Because some large companies pay our dear EuroSnivelSerpents to make
sure it never happens. When you set up the biggest trough in the
world you should not be surprised to find the biggest snouts in it.

On Nov 2, 10:46*am, Peter Parry wrote:
Most people would consider "new" to mean just that,
not delivered broken and repaired in situ.

Laptop manufacturers will like it.
Typical discount on "refurbished" vs "new" laptops is about 20-25%.

They already use not-necessarily-new parts to repair laptops.

On Mon, 2 Nov 2009 20:33:30 -0000, "tim...."
wrote:


If I but a new TV, I will be because I want a new TV TODAY. It wont be
because I want it in four weeks time after they have repaired it

You might be lucky to see it in 4 weeks, it is probably still on its
first attempt at repair.

Peter Parry
wibbled on Monday 02 November 2009 22:37

On Mon, 02 Nov 2009 20:24:08 +0000, Tim W wrote:


Or if they must, why not tell all the sub standards sods to get up to our
level (or whoever is doing the best at X).

Because some large companies pay our dear EuroSnivelSerpents to make
sure it never happens. When you set up the biggest trough in the
world you should not be surprised to find the biggest snouts in it.

Why does "666" come to mind...

--
Tim Watts

This space intentionally left blank...

On 2 Nov, 22:35, Peter Parry wrote:

I have certainly bought good in the past that I definitely did not
want repairing - I bought a washing machine that had a major design fault:
when first used, the temperature control failed and either there was no
backup cut-out or it too failed; the water boiled and the escaping steam
melted the soap tray. I did not want such a hazard in the house and the
shop had no comparable machines, so I insisted on a full refund. Under the
proposed legislation, I would have had to either accept a repair (or a
lesser machine, if the "replacement" part of the legislation allows) or
lose £450.

Broadly, yes.

No, you would reject it for not being fit for purpose. There is a
load of bull**** scaremongering going on in this thread.

"Steve Walker" wrote in message
.. .
On Mon, 02 Nov 2009 14:36:08 +0000, Peter Parry wrote:

On Mon, 02 Nov 2009 11:33:46 +0000 (GMT), "Dave Liquorice"
wrote:

On Mon, 02 Nov 2009 10:46:03 +0000, Peter Parry wrote:

Not really, that is a contractual agreement between M&S and it's
customers and will not be affected.

As I read the linked article such "gold plating" by individual
sellers would also be banned.

The article was wrong. What a supplier wishes to offer as part of
the contract with the customer is up to them and will remain so.

I thought soem of the idea of "europe" was to take the best
legislation and bring other countries up to that nit bring everyone
down to the lowest..

This measure is being implemented as a "maximum harmonisation" measure
so member states cannot alter it or add to it. The UK enjoys somewhat
better consumer protection than most EU countries so a downgrading is
inevitable. The loss of the right to reject goods found faulty upon
delivery is only one of a number of "improvements" we will enjoy as
out Uroexperience is enhanced.

The question is, why does the EU feel the need to intefere with what
refund
rules we have in the UK? If we simply declare that our internal
legislation
will not affect mail order imports or exports then what we do here has no
impact whatsoever on any other European country at all, so why not leave
it
alone? I have certainly bought good in the past that I definitely did not
want repairing - I bought a washing machine that had a major design fault:
when first used, the temperature control failed and either there was no
backup cut-out or it too failed; the water boiled and the escaping steam
melted the soap tray. I did not want such a hazard in the house and the
shop had no comparable machines, so I insisted on a full refund. Under the
proposed legislation, I would have had to either accept a repair (or a
lesser machine, if the "replacement" part of the legislation allows) or
lose £450.


What makes you think that you can't reject the machine if it has such a
major defect?

Steve Walker wrote:
On Mon, 02 Nov 2009 14:36:08 +0000, Peter Parry wrote:

On Mon, 02 Nov 2009 11:33:46 +0000 (GMT), "Dave Liquorice"
wrote:

On Mon, 02 Nov 2009 10:46:03 +0000, Peter Parry wrote:
Not really, that is a contractual agreement between M&S and it's
customers and will not be affected.
As I read the linked article such "gold plating" by individual
sellers would also be banned.
The article was wrong. What a supplier wishes to offer as part of
the contract with the customer is up to them and will remain so.

I thought soem of the idea of "europe" was to take the best
legislation and bring other countries up to that nit bring everyone
down to the lowest..
This measure is being implemented as a "maximum harmonisation" measure
so member states cannot alter it or add to it. The UK enjoys somewhat
better consumer protection than most EU countries so a downgrading is
inevitable. The loss of the right to reject goods found faulty upon
delivery is only one of a number of "improvements" we will enjoy as
out Uroexperience is enhanced.

The question is, why does the EU feel the need to intefere with what refund
rules we have in the UK?

exactly: **** the EU.

On Mon, 2 Nov 2009 15:02:21 -0800 (PST), Bolted
wrote:


No, you would reject it for not being fit for purpose. There is a
load of bull**** scaremongering going on in this thread.

I suggest you read the proposed legislation. It is proposing that the
right to reject in currently in the Sale of Goods Act will be removed.

On Mon, 2 Nov 2009 23:47:46 -0000, "OG"
wrote:


What makes you think that you can't reject the machine if it has such a
major defect?

The fact the new Directive includes no right of rejection and will
remove the existing one.

On Tue, 03 Nov 2009 01:23:52 +0000, The Natural Philosopher
had this to say:

exactly: **** the EU.

Hear hear.

--
Frank Erskine

in 237938 20091103 104943 Frank Erskine wrote:
On Tue, 03 Nov 2009 01:23:52 +0000, The Natural Philosopher
had this to say:

exactly: **** the EU.

Hear hear.

I can't hear anything.

On 3 Nov, 09:58, Peter Parry wrote:
On Mon, 2 Nov 2009 15:02:21 -0800 (PST), Bolted

wrote:

No, you would reject it for not being fit for purpose. *There is a
load of bull**** scaremongering going on in this thread.

I suggest you read the proposed legislation. *It is proposing that the
right to reject in currently in the Sale of Goods Act will be removed.

I suggest you read it more carefully. It does no such thing.

On 3 Nov, 09:59, Peter Parry wrote:
On Mon, 2 Nov 2009 23:47:46 -0000, "OG"
wrote:



What makes you think that you can't reject the machine if it has such a
major defect?

The fact the new Directive includes no right of rejection and will
remove the existing one.

Quote from the Commission:

Much concern has been expressed about the relationship between the
consumer sales
remedies referred to in Article 26 and the traditional contract law
remedies of the Member
States, such as the right to reject in the UK and IE, the guarantee
for hidden faults in
France or the azione redibitoria in Italy.

It was never the intention that the full harmonisation of the specific
consumer remedies in
the proposal would preclude Member States from retaining their
traditional contract law
remedies. Full harmonisation of the existing consumer sales remedies
should not exhaust
the remedies for faulty goods available to the consumers on condition
that the legal
requirements for the exercise of these general remedies are different
from those applying to
the consumer sales remedies. In most Member States the consumer sales
remedies coexist
with the traditional contract law remedies, and the consumer may
choose to use either
regime. For example, in the UK and IE a consumer may decide to resort
to the consumer
sales remedies or to the right to reject. The requirements for the
exercise of right to reject
are different from those of the consumer sale remedies. The consumer
does not have two
years to reject a faulty product but has to do it within a reasonable
time (to examine the
good). Moreover, the consumer does not benefit from a reversal of the
burden of proof
when he exercises the right to reject. Similarly, in France, the
consumer should still be able
to refer to the guarantee of hidden faults. By harmonising only the
consumer sales
remedies the impact of full harmonisation on this topic should be
rather limited and thus
UK and FR consumers could retain their specific rights. Member States
should however be
precluded from circumventing the full harmonisation character of the
proposal by
amending the hierarchy of remedies provided in Article 2613 which is
specific to consumer
contracts.
A number of Member States have expressed doubts about the practicality
of such a dual
regime and are willing to go further and harmonise consumer remedies
for faulty goods
exhaustively by including further remedies in the proposal, such as a
right to reject.
However, should such an exhaustive harmonisation not be achieved, a
provision in the
proposal could be inserted unequivocally confirming that full
harmonisation of the specific
consumer remedies in the proposal does not preclude Member States from
retaining their
traditional contract law remedies.
It must also be borne in mind that the proposal will not affect the
consumer's right, under
national law, to enforce performance of the contract or seek damages
since these issues
are not covered. The proposal does not affect the consumer's freedom
to seek damages or
enforce performance of the contract straight away (i.e. he may decide
not to use the
consumer sales remedies). Article 27(2) means that the Member States
are obliged to
provide consumers with a right to damages for losses not remedied
under the proposal.
However, the conditions of the trader's liability (e.g. strict
liability or culpability), and the
type and amount of the damage will have to be determined under
national law.

Peter Parry wrote:
On Mon, 2 Nov 2009 07:39:39 +0000, TheOldFellow
wrote:

Strange this was a scoop for the Express, I'd have thought the
Torygraph would have front-paged it.

It isn't a "scoop". It has been public knowledge for a year or so. It
refers to the abolition of the right of rejection of faulty goods
which, in Europe, is unique to the UK and its replacement by a more
continental procedure which allows the supplier to repair goods
instead.

I fell foul of that just a little more than 12 months ago, when I had to
replace our oven. It developed a minor fault within days. The oven
wouldn't warm up.

Comet wouldn't replace it and insisted that their engineer came out to
repair it instead.

Needless to say, I won't be passing inside their doors again and I will
support an independent store in the future.

Dave

The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Steve Walker wrote:
On Mon, 02 Nov 2009 14:36:08 +0000, Peter Parry wrote:

On Mon, 02 Nov 2009 11:33:46 +0000 (GMT), "Dave Liquorice"
wrote:

On Mon, 02 Nov 2009 10:46:03 +0000, Peter Parry wrote:
Not really, that is a contractual agreement between M&S and it's
customers and will not be affected.
As I read the linked article such "gold plating" by individual
sellers would also be banned.
The article was wrong. What a supplier wishes to offer as part of
the contract with the customer is up to them and will remain so.

I thought soem of the idea of "europe" was to take the best
legislation and bring other countries up to that nit bring everyone
down to the lowest..
This measure is being implemented as a "maximum harmonisation" measure
so member states cannot alter it or add to it. The UK enjoys somewhat
better consumer protection than most EU countries so a downgrading is
inevitable. The loss of the right to reject goods found faulty upon
delivery is only one of a number of "improvements" we will enjoy as
out Uroexperience is enhanced.

The question is, why does the EU feel the need to intefere with what
refund
rules we have in the UK?

exactly: **** the EU.

But when will be able to do that?

We have spent many years defending its honour. WWI WWII etc.
Is it now time that they ****ed us? :-(

Dave

On Tue, 3 Nov 2009 08:20:25 -0800 (PST), Bolted wrote:

On 3 Nov, 09:59, Peter Parry wrote:
On Mon, 2 Nov 2009 23:47:46 -0000, "OG"
wrote:



What makes you think that you can't reject the machine if it has such a
major defect?

The fact the new Directive includes no right of rejection and will
remove the existing one.

Quote from the Commission:

Much concern has been expressed about the relationship between the
consumer sales

Snipped

type and amount of the damage will have to be determined under
national law.

That sounds more promising than what was first mentioned, but it still
doesn't make me entirely happy. EU rules tend to end up entirely replacing
our own in this country and I'd be much happier if instead of setting rules
and the commission saying that they are only changing one part of the law,
they specifically wrote into the legislation that this was a set of minimum
requirements and that anything that exceeded this in a specific country's
law was unchanged. So many times we are told that new rules will only apply
in certain circumstances and then they turn out to be applied with a very
broad brush, erasing existing arrangements.

Also it was mentioned that the right to return mail order goods without
reason was to go too. If this is correct, it is ridiculous, as many items
cannot be properly judged until you can physically see and touch them.

SteveW

On 3 Nov, 18:28, Steve Walker wrote:

Also it was mentioned that the right to return mail order goods without
reason was to go too. If this is correct, it is ridiculous, as many items
cannot be properly judged until you can physically see and touch them.

Again, made-up europhobic propaganda:

"Cooling off periods (distance and pressure sales): A single EU-wide
cooling off period of 14 calendar days is set down, along with rules
on the beginning of the withdrawal period. The withdrawal period is
extended to three months in all cases where the trader fails to
provide information. An easy to use, standard withdrawal form, is also
introduced. The trader must reimburse the consumer no later than 30
calendar days from the day that the consumer exercises the right of
withdrawal. "

On Tue, 3 Nov 2009 18:28:25 +0000 Steve Walker wrote :
Also it was mentioned that the right to return mail order goods
without reason was to go too. If this is correct, it is ridiculous, as
many items cannot be properly judged until you can physically see and
touch them.

So, in the absence of legal rights, you don't buy them from a firm that
doesn't have a no-quibble return facility. Way back in the 1960s IIRC
the big mail order catalogue firms (John Moore's, Freemans etc) refunded
without question, likewise M&S for shop sales, although they were not
obliged to.

--
Tony Bryer, Greentram: 'Software to build on' Melbourne, Australia
www.superbeam.co.uk www.superbeam.com www.greentram.com

On Tue, 3 Nov 2009 08:20:25 -0800 (PST), Bolted
wrote:

On 3 Nov, 09:59, Peter Parry wrote:

The fact the new Directive includes no right of rejection and will
remove the existing one.

Quote from the Commission:

Thank you for confirming what I stated. Currently the proposal as
published will, under maximum harmonisation, remove the right to
reject goods amongst other retrograde steps.

You also omitted the heading from the document

http://ec.europa.eu/consumers/rights...ote_CDR_en.pdf

(which has no author or department named) you quoted which states at
its top :-

"NB: This is work in progress. The draft does not represent the
official views of the Commission."

Much concern has been expressed about the relationship between the
consumer sales remedies referred to in Article 26 and the traditional contract law
remedies of the Member States, such as the right to reject in the UK and IE, the guarantee
for hidden faults in France or the azione redibitoria in Italy.

It was never the intention

It may never have been the intention but that is what was achieved
despite many objections throughout the drafting process. Whether the
result was due to the usual low standard of EU legal draftsmanship or
other reasons is immaterial.

that the full harmonisation of the specific consumer remedies in the proposal would preclude Member States from retaining their
traditional contract law remedies.

That is, as was pointed out by many during the drafting process,
simply nonsense.

Full harmonisation of the existing consumer sales remedies should not exhaust the remedies for faulty
goods available to the consumers on condition that the legal requirements for the exercise of these general remedies are different
from those applying to the consumer sales remedies.

If this was in English it might be comprehensible.

In most Member States the consumer sales
remedies coexist with the traditional contract law remedies, and the consumer may
choose to use either regime. For example, in the UK and IE a consumer may decide to resort
to the consumer sales remedies or to the right to reject. The requirements for the
exercise of right to reject are different from those of the consumer sale remedies. The consumer
does not have two years to reject a faulty product but has to do it within a reasonable
time (to examine the good). Moreover, the consumer does not benefit from a reversal of the
burden of proof when he exercises the right to reject. Similarly, in France, the
consumer should still be able to refer to the guarantee of hidden faults. By harmonising only the
consumer sales remedies the impact of full harmonisation on this topic should be
rather limited and thus UK and FR consumers could retain their specific rights.

So a consumer sales remedy is a consumer sales remedy unless it isn't
called a consumer sales remedy even though it is a consumer sales
remedy? It is very kind of the EU to clarify matters and good to see
the urocrats working for their bribes.

Member States should however be precluded from circumventing the full harmonisation character of the
proposal by amending the hierarchy of remedies provided in Article 2613 which is
specific to consumer contracts.

So you can have a local law for consumer contracts but you can't make
it specific to consumer contracts? If this was the intention why
introduce the new legislation under the straightjacket of maximum
harmonisation? If national laws were intended to remain minimum
harmonisation would have been the appropriate route.

For example at the moment in the UK you have up to 6 years to seek
redress for goods which are faulty ( a time set by the Limitations Act
of 1980). Under the present EU proposals this would reduce to a 2
year maximum limit. Following the tortured logic of the press release
you quote a consumer would be limited to a 2 year limit unless they
decided to say they were not a consumer in which case they would have
6 years, but wouldn't be entitled to the protection of any consumer
legislation to help their case. I can see this being really simple.

A number of Member States have expressed doubts about the practicality
of such a dual regime

I can't imagine why.

and are willing to go further and harmonise consumer remedies
for faulty goods exhaustively by including further remedies in the proposal, such as a
right to reject. However, should such an exhaustive harmonisation not be achieved, a
provision in the proposal could be inserted unequivocally confirming that full
harmonisation of the specific consumer remedies in the proposal does not preclude Member States from
retaining their traditional contract law remedies.

"Could" be included, not _is_ included nor is even proposed to be
included.

A slightly more credible, and undoubtedly more informed view of the
proposed legislation can be found in the Joint Consultation Paper
Consumer Remedies for Faulty Goods (Law Commission Consultation Paper
No 188 and The Scottish Law Commission Discussion Paper No 139)

www.scotlawcom.gov.uk/downloads/dps/dp139.pdf

and the House of Lords European Union Committee - Eighteenth Report
EU Consumer Rights Directive.

http://www.publications.parliament.u.../126/12602.htm