D
Descart
Guest
Bronte,
Fresh cod!
Fresh cod!
Bronte,
Fresh cod!
Sarenco,
Eureka, that is the whole trust and cut of the Pannon judgment from the ECJ, which, you need to study again, as the penny has not dropped. The Millar's do not have to complain that the said term is unfair, the obligation is on the actual court to examine the unfairness of the contractual term in dispute, on their own motion. Here is brief synopsis of the judgment.
Pannon Judgment
In its judgment the Court explains that, in the field covered by Directive 93/13/EEC, the role attributed to the national court is not limited to a mere power to rule on the possible unfairness of a contractual term, but also consists of the obligation to examine that issue of its own motion, where it has available to it the legal and factual elements necessary for that task.
The Court also points out that, for the court to find that an unfair contract term is not binding on the consumer, it is not necessary for the consumer to have explicitly contested it.
DO YOU GET IT NOW!
He is of course correct.
They erred in not complying with their obligations re the Pannon Judgment.
It is not my opinion that they erred, the fact are; based on their respective judgments, that they did.
For someone who is likely employed by AAM, you take a very anti consumer approach and it is an open forum, not a court.
Sarenco,
The Pannon judgment speaks for itself. You, on the other hand, speak for the banks.