The Supreme Court recently answered preliminary questions (questions of interpretation of the law) about online shopping. The Supreme Court's answers in the two cases in question provide more clarity on article 6:230v paragraph 3 of the Dutch Civil Code. This article prescribes how it must be made clear that a consumer enters into an obligation to pay when making an online purchase.

In the case against Bol.com (in Dutch), the Supreme Court ruled that buttons with text such as “place order” (bestelling plaatsen) or “order” (bestellen) are not clear enough. The average consumer will not always understand from this that he is entering into a payment obligation. If these kinds of buttons are used, the court can decide that the contract is annulled in whole or in part. If the consumer defaults on the lawsuit, the annulment may only be partial. The Supreme Court considers a one-third reduction of the consumer's payment obligation reasonable in principle in that case. Under certain conditions, the consumer can still later annul the contract in full.

Another case (in Dutch), against an educational institution, dealt with what happens if a contract is annulled in its entirety. The Supreme Court ruled that a trader (such as the educational institution in this case) may be entitled to reasonable compensation in that case. The court must assess whether the compensation is reasonable, where it would not be fair for the merchant to get back the full value of what was delivered without a discount.

These rulings help merchants better understand what is legally expected of them.

Daniël Haije