The limitations of annulment law

There are other aspects of consumer law which do not offer minors special protection: the information and the right of withdrawal in cases of distance contract, a type of transaction which has been growing strongly over recent years following the development of the internet and the diversification of methods of online payment. In the case of purchases made via the internet, the consumer (major or minor) should in effect receive more information than is the case for a normal purchase. In addition he or she can send back the item to the vendor and be refunded for the purchase within a time limit of 14 days (sometimes 3 months if the vendor has informed the buyer badly, in particular as far as the possibility of withdrawal is concerned).

‘These measures are not adapted to the situation of a minor consumer,’ criticises Aurélie Nottet: ‘if she is buying by herself, she will receive a lot of information, but it is not certain if she will read it and understand it. As for her right of withdrawal, does she know how to exercise it? She will probably need her parents’ help to send back the item to the vendor, who is sometimes located on the other side of the world. A valuable aspect of this right of withdrawal is that parents can oblige children to send the item back, but they still need to become aware of the purchase sufficiently early. Minors sometimes download elements from the internet which remain in the computer folders and when their parents notice them the time limit of 14 days has already passed.’

The author of the thesis nonetheless argues that the withdrawal period could be extended to three months in the case of a distance contract by a minor consumer (in due course this period could even increase from 3 to 12 months due to a new European directive on the subject). ‘The law stipulates that a consumer involved in distance purchasing must receive full and complete information about the product. According to Civil Code regulations, this supplying of information is a juridical act from the vendor vis-à-vis the buyer. If the latter is a minor, and thus not competent in the eyes of the law, this information should be addressed to their parents, who are the minor’s legal representatives. As this is rarely the case, the trader is almost always ‘at fault’ in fulfilling its duty to provide information. As a result the withdrawal period can be increased to 3 months, and soon to 12 months. That being said, this type of reasoning, which consists of applying concurrently consumer law and law applying to minors is frankly convoluted and gives rise to solutions which certainly protect the minor consumer but which are not very accessible in practice.’

In conclusion, Aurélie Nottet feels that it is maybe not really necessary to legislate more in order to protect the minor consumer. She above all pleads for a better application of existing legislation, such as that on unfair commercial practices and rendering null purchases which cause a loss to the minor. ‘As the consumer does not have the means to open proceedings because he does not have the will, the time or the money, we need to be a lot stricter with the way business act. They often know or assume that such or such a buyer is a minor, but the risk of seeing the contract called into question is so minimal that they go ahead and sell. This manner of acting is even more widespread in sales on the internet, where business can take refuge behind the fact that they cannot see the client. Insisting on respect for existing legislation would ensure minor consumers the protection they deserve.’