AN ANALYSIS OF THE “RIGHT OF TERMINATION”, “RIGHT OF CANCELLATION” AND “RIGHT OF WITHDRAWAL” IN OFF-PREMISES AND DISTANCE CONTRACTS ACCORDING TO EU DIRECTIVES

Main Article Content

Abstract

Several are the European Directives dedicated to e-commerce, focussing on consumer rights, the distance marketing of consumer financial services and the protection of consumers in distance contracts. In contract law, the terms “termination”, “withdrawal” and “cancellation” have peculiar and distinct meaning. Nonetheless, they tend to be misused and applied interchangeably. This article will shed light on these relevant terms in the light of EU Directives on the protection of consumer rights in off-premises and distance contracts. To do so, it will first present instances in which the meaning and use of these terms is either clear-cut or somehow blurred. By analysing word usage and meaning in context, it will explore how EU Directives, and EU drafters in general, made (un)ambiguous distinctions. Then, it will investigate whether English-speaking drafters (such as those of the pre-Brexit UK, Ireland and Malta) made a consistent use of such terms. Finally, this paper will explore whether online conditions of sale written in English by non-English speaking sellers or traders (such as Italian and Polish) also make a consistent use of the terms. The paper findings highlight that the use and legal purpose of these terms in European Directives have not been particularly consistent over the years. Furthermore, Member States’ system-specificity has weighed on the meaning, application and scope of the terms. On the other hand, at EU level the absence of a unique legal system of reference and the challenges of harmonization may have created false equivalences.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Article Details

How to Cite
GIAMPIERI, P. (2021). AN ANALYSIS OF THE “RIGHT OF TERMINATION”, “RIGHT OF CANCELLATION” AND “RIGHT OF WITHDRAWAL” IN OFF-PREMISES AND DISTANCE CONTRACTS ACCORDING TO EU DIRECTIVES. Comparative Legilinguistics, 47, 105-133. https://doi.org/10.2478/cl-2021-0014
Section
Articles
Author Biography

Patrizia GIAMPIERI

Università degli Studi di Camerino, School of Law

Via D’Accorso, 16. 62032 Camerino (MC);

Scuola Superiore per Mediatori Linguistici “Carlo Bo”

Via Tommasetti, 6. 00161 Roma, Italy

References

  1. Anthony, Laurence. 2020. AntConc 3.5.9. https://www.laurenceanthony.net/software/antconc/ (accessed August 26, 2021).
  2. Baroni, Marco, and Silvia, Bernardini. 2004. BootCaT: Bootstrapping corpora and terms from the web. Proceedings of LREC 2004. 1313-1316. sslmit.unibo.it/~baroni/publications/lrec2004/bootcat_lrec_2004.pdf (accessed August 26, 2021).
  3. Giampieri, Patrizia. 2016. Is the European legal English legalese-free? Italian Journal of Public Law 8 (2): 424-440.
  4. Giampieri, Patrizia. In press. Legal English & Contract Law – Contrattualistica Comparata. Milan: Giuffrè-Lefebvre.
  5. Hill, Gerald and Kathleen, Thompson Hill. 2002. The People’s Law Dictionary – Taking The Mystery Out of Legal Language. New York: MJF Books.
  6. Jacometti, Valentina, and Barbara, Pozzo. 2018. Traduttologia e linguaggio giuridico. Milano: Wolters Kluwer.
  7. Mariani, Jessica. 2018. Migration in Translation: The Role of Terminology and Trans-Editing in Shaping The Crisis in EU Institutions. PhD diss., University of Verona, Department of Foreign Languages and Literatures. https://termcoord.eu/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/Mariani-PhD-Project-2017.pdf
  8. Sacco, Rodolfo. 1991. Legal Formants: A Dynamic Approach to Comparative Law (Installment I of II), The American Journal of Comparative Law 39 (1): 1-34.
  9. Sagri, Maria-Teresa e Daniela, Tiscornia. 2009. Le peculiarità del linguaggio giuridico. Problemi e prospettive nel contesto multilingue europeo, mediAzioni 7: 1-28. http://www.mediazioni.sitlec.unibo.it/index.php/no7-anno2009/61.html (accessed August 26, 2021).
  10. Sánchez Abril, Patricia, Francisco Oliva Blázquez and Joan Martínez Evora. 2018. The Right of Withdrawal in Consumer Contracts: a comparative analysis of American and European law. InDret 3: 1-56. University of Miami Business School Research Paper No. 18-13. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/Delivery.cfm/SSRN_ID3260506_code1215542.pdf?abstractid=3260506&mirid=1 (accessed August 26, 2021).
  11. Šarčević, Susan. 2000. Legal Translation and Translation Theory: A Receiver-oriented Approach. In La traduction juridique, Histoire, téorie(s) et pratique, ed. Jean-Claude Gémar, 329-347. Genève: Université de Genève. http://www.tradulex.com/en/translators/Legal-Geneva2000 (accessed August 26, 2021).