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/docs/note_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.uk/pa/ld200809/ldselect/ldeucom/126/12602.htm