In connection with European legal regulations, the Civil Code expressly regulates situations concerning withdrawal from a purchase contract by a consumer regarding goods which cannot be sent by ordinary postal delivery. In the language of the law, this concerns such goods which cannot “be returned by the usual postal route due to their nature.” Given that this is an issue which some traders encounter frequently in practice (with regard to the range of products offered), we have decided to dedicate this legal circular to it.
The provision of Section 1820(1)(j) of the Civil Code stipulates that “where the conduct of the parties is directed towards the conclusion of a contract, the trader shall inform the consumer sufficiently in advance of the conclusion of the contract … of the information that in the event of withdrawal from the contract the consumer shall bear the costs associated with returning the goods, and … the amount of the costs associated with returning the goods, if it cannot be returned by the usual postal route due to its nature…” Two basic conclusions can therefore be drawn from this provision.
Firstly, in the event that withdrawal from the purchase contract occurs by the consumer without stating a reason, the consumer bears the costs associated with returning the goods to the trader. However, this only applies on the condition that the trader informs the consumer in advance that the consumer will bear these costs (for example, in the terms and conditions of business or in another manner). Of course, it is not excluded that the trader may voluntarily assume these costs as well (and, for example, collect the goods himself), but in such case this is already done beyond the scope of his statutory obligations. However, such a situation must be strictly distinguished from cases where the consumer sends goods for complaint (legitimately). In such a case, the consumer is also entitled to reimbursement of costs reasonably incurred in asserting the right arising from the trader’s liability for defects (Section 1924), and such costs may also consist of costs incurred in sending the goods to the trader. Similarly, the trader should bear these costs in cases where the consumer withdraws from the purchase contract due to a defect in the goods, etc.
The second conclusion which can be derived from the above-mentioned provision of Section 1820(1)(j) of the Civil Code is that in the case of oversized or excessively heavy goods, i.e. goods which cannot “be returned by the usual postal route due to their nature”, it is necessary to inform the consumer in advance also of the amount of the costs associated with returning such goods. Understandably, fulfilment of such an information obligation may not always be entirely easy for the trader, as transport costs may vary depending on the nature of the particular goods offered. The sanction for the trader’s failure to fulfil this obligation is that these costs must be borne by the trader (instead of the consumer). Specifically, this is stipulated in Section 1832(3) of the Civil Code. “The trader shall reimburse the consumer for the costs associated with returning the goods if he has not informed the consumer of the obligation to bear these costs in accordance with the provision of Section 1820(1)(j).” This means that in such a case, the trader shall bear both the costs of transporting the goods to the consumer and of transport back.
Josef Aujezdský
This text was originally prepared by the law firm Mašek, Kočí, Aujezdský in cooperation with the Association for Electronic Commerce (APEK) as legal circular No. 03/2023 intended for members of this association.
This text was translated from Czech to English using an AI translator.