In the event that a consumer withdraws from a purchase contract without stating a reason (pursuant to Section 1829 of the Civil Code), such purchase contract shall terminate and the contracting parties shall return to each other the performance provided on the basis thereof. Given that the obligations of the parties in returning performance are regulated in greater detail by law, we have decided to dedicate this legal bulletin to them.

In relation to the buyer’s obligations to return goods, Section 1831(1) of the Civil Code provides as follows: “If the consumer withdraws from the contract, he shall send or hand over to the trader without undue delay, no later than fourteen days from withdrawal from the contract, the goods which he received from him, unless the trader has offered to collect the goods himself. The time limit shall be preserved if the consumer sends the goods before its expiry.” This means that from the day following the day on which the consumer delivered (valid) withdrawal from the contract to the trader, a fourteen-day period runs within which the consumer should return the goods to the trader. We remind that the return of goods should take place at the consumer’s expense, provided that the trader has duly fulfilled his information obligation. The said fourteen-day period is a so-called procedural time limit (similar to the withdrawal from the contract itself), which means that for its observance by the consumer it is sufficient if the consumer gives the goods for transport (thus the goods need not be delivered to the trader within this time limit).

The trader’s obligations are then regulated in greater detail in Section 1832 of the Civil Code. In this connection, it is probably not necessary to emphasise that when returning money to a consumer, it is always advisable from the trader’s perspective to wait until the consumer fulfils his above-mentioned obligation to return the goods. Paragraph 4 of the provision in question also speaks in this spirit, which establishes: “If the consumer withdraws from the purchase contract, the trader is not obliged to return the received funds to the consumer before he receives the goods, or before the consumer proves to him that he has sent the goods back, whichever occurs earlier.” The above-mentioned waiting approach therefore does not apply if the consumer proves to the trader that he has sent the goods back. What can be considered sufficient to prove that the consumer has sent the goods back is not specified (thus only a reasonable approach in this area can be recommended).

In this variant, it is not excluded that the trader does not have in his possession at a certain moment either the funds or the goods, as otherwise the law sets a fourteen-day period for the trader to return the goods. Specifically, Section 1832(1) of the Civil Code provides that “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 funds including delivery costs which he received from him on the basis of the contract, in the same manner. The trader shall return the received funds to the consumer in a different manner only if the consumer has agreed to this and if no further costs are incurred thereby.”

The above provision therefore further regulates both the manner of returning money to the consumer and the question of returning delivery costs. Regarding the manner of returning funds to the consumer, it is provided that it shall take place in the same manner in which the trader received the funds. The money may be returned in a different manner only if the consumer agrees to this and no further costs are incurred thereby. This legal regulation, which originates in the Consumer Rights Directive, naturally generates certain questions for practice, for example in connection with cases where payment of the purchase price for goods was made by means of cash on delivery (dobírka).

We have repeatedly addressed the issue of returning delivery costs to the consumer in legal bulletins and other materials. However, we can again recall that pursuant to Section 1832(2) of the Civil Code, “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.” Personal collection is not, in our opinion, to be described as a method of delivery of goods.

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 bulletin No. 04/2023 intended for members of this association.

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