Should Price Reduction be Recognised as a Separate Contractual Remedy?

Author:Piia Kalamees - Karin Sein
Position:LL.M., Lecturer in Civil Law, University of Tartu -Docent of Civil Law, University of Tartu
Pages:52-60
 
FREE EXCERPT
52 JURIDICA INTERNATIONAL XX/2013
Piia Kalamees Karin Sein
Ph.D, Lecturer of Civil Law Docent of Civil Law
University of Tartu University of Tartu
Should Price Reduction be
Recognised as a Separate
Contractual Remedy?
1. Introduction
Price reduction as a remedy is found in many international instruments and in the legal tradition of diverse
countries. For example, it has been regulated in the German Civil Code*1 (BGB), the Dutch Civil Code*2
(BW), and the Estonian Law of Obligations Act*3 (LOA).
*4 In addition, price reduction belongs to the sys-
tem of remedies acknowledged in international and EU legislation and model regulations. For instance,
price reduction is provided for as a remedy in Directive 1999/44/EC of the European Parliament and of the
Council on certain aspects of the sale of consumer goods and associated guarantees*5 (i.e., the Consumer
Sales Directive), United Nations Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods*6 (CISG), Pro-
posal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on a Common European Sales Law*7
(CESL), and Draft Common Frame of Reference
*8 (DCFR).
Bearing in mind the recent developments in European contract law that are evident in, for example, the
Consumer Sales Directive, the CESL, and the DCFR, one nds price reduction as a remedy to be clearly a
topical issue. First of all, the question arises of whether providing for price reduction as a remedy is justi ed,
since, for example, in the Anglo-American legal system it is believed that there is no need for price reduction
as a separate remedy—because a set-off between the claim for damages and claim for payment would pro-
duce a similar outcome.
*9 The position has been taken in Dutch law that the effects of price reduction can
1 Bürgerliches Gesetzbuch, Bürgerliches Gesetzbuch in der Fassung der Bekanntmachung vom 2. Januar 2002 (BGBl. I S. 42,
2909; 2003 I S. 738), das zuletzt durch Artikel 7 des Gesetzes vom 19. Oktober 2012 (BGBl. S. 2182) geändert worden ist.
2 Burgerlijk Wetboek, 1.1.1992.
3 Võlaõigusseadus. – RT I 2001, 81, 487; RT I 08.07.2011, 21 (in Estonian).
4 P. Varul et al. Võlaõigusseadus III. Kommenteeritud väljaanne [‘Law of Obligations Act III. Commented Edition’]. Tallinn:
Juura 2009, p. 370 (in Estonian).
5 Directive 1999/44/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 May 1999 on certain aspects of the sale of con-
sumer goods and associated guarantees. – OJ L 171, 7.7.1999, pp. 12–16.
6 RT II 1993, 21/22, 52.
7 Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on a Common European Sales Law, COM(2011) 635
nal. Available at http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2011:0635:FIN:EN:PDF (most recently
accessed on 10.4.2013).
8 C. von Bar, E. Clive (eds). Principles, De nitions and Model Rules of European Private Law: Draft Common Frame of
Reference (DCFR). Full Edition. Munich: Sellier 2009.
9 J. Basedow, K.J. Hopt, R. Zimmermann, A. Stier (eds). The Max Planck Encyclopedia of European Private Law. Oxford:
Oxford University Press 2012, p. 1314.

To continue reading

REQUEST YOUR TRIAL