In the event that a consumer withdraws from a purchase contract without stating a reason (pursuant to Section 1829 of the Civil Code), certain questions may arise in theory and in practice relating to the costs of transporting the goods which were the subject of such purchase contract. Whilst the issue of bearing the costs of transporting goods to the buyer is discussed relatively often, we have not yet addressed in detail in our legal bulletin the question of bearing the costs of transporting returned goods (that is, transport towards the seller).

As a reminder, we mention at the outset also the legal regulation of bearing the costs of transporting goods to the buyer, which is contained in the provisions of Section 1832(1) and (2) of the Civil Code. “If the consumer withdraws from the contract, the trader shall return to him without undue delay, no later than fourteen days from withdrawal from the contract, all monetary funds including costs of delivery which he received from him on the basis of the contract, in the same manner.” “If the consumer has chosen a method of delivery of goods other than the cheapest method offered by the trader, the trader shall return to the consumer the costs of delivery of goods in an amount corresponding to the cheapest offered method of delivery of goods.” This Czech legal regulation is a reflection not only of the Consumer Rights Directive but also of previous case law of the Court of Justice of the EU.

The regulation in the area of bearing the costs of transporting returned goods (that is, transport of goods back towards the seller) is conceived differently. These costs should in fact be borne primarily by the consumer, provided that the trader duly fulfils its information obligation. Section 1832(3) of the Civil Code specifically establishes that “the trader shall reimburse the consumer for costs connected with the return of goods if he has not informed the consumer of the obligation to bear these costs in accordance with the provision of Section 1820(1)(g).” This means that the trader shall always bear also the costs of returning goods if he does not inform the consumer in advance that these costs are borne by the consumer.

A more complex situation may arise with goods which “cannot be returned by reason of their nature by ordinary post”. In connection with such goods, it is necessary to point to the specific wording of the above-mentioned provision of Section 1820(1)(g) of the Civil Code, which regulates the scope of the trader’s information obligation in this area. This provides that the trader shall communicate “to the consumer sufficiently in advance of concluding the contract… information that in the event of withdrawal from the contract the consumer shall bear the costs connected with the return of goods, and if it concerns a contract concluded by means of distance communication, the costs for the return of goods if such goods cannot be returned by reason of their nature by ordinary post.” Here it is necessary to draw attention in particular to the second part of this sentence, from which it follows that for goods which cannot usually be sent by post, the trader should inform the consumer in advance also of the amount of costs of transporting such goods back to the trader.

As has already been indicated, if the trader does not fulfil this information obligation and the consumer withdraws from the contract, these costs of transporting goods back are borne by the trader (see the above-mentioned Section 1832(3) of the Civil Code). If, therefore, the trader offers such a type of goods (for example, bulky or very heavy goods), it is certainly advisable that he devote appropriate attention to the fulfilment of this information obligation.

Josef Aujezdský, advocate

This text was originally prepared by the law firm Mašek, Kočí, Aujezdský in cooperation with the Association for Electronic Commerce (APEK) as legal bulletin No. 10/2019 intended for members of this association.

This text was translated from Czech to English using an AI translator.