Lis justiciable who think they are exploiting the subtleties of the consumer code to earn money at the expense of a loyal professional can sometimes be taken to their own trap, as shown in the following affair.
On April 3, 2017, Mr. and Mme X concludes with BMW finance a rental contract with purchase option (LOA) allowing them to use a car for three years before deciding to buy or return it. In a hurry, they request immediate delivery of the vehicle.
In 2019, they returned to the latter and … attack the financial company in court. They ask that it be ordered to cancel their contract and reimburse their rents, on the grounds that in 2017, it would have violated their right of withdrawal, by delivering the vehicle prematurely.
They assure that the LOA being assimilated to a consumer credit, they had fourteen days after acceptance of the offer to retract (which is correct, since provided by articles L312-2 and L312-19 of the Consumer Code).
But that, because they asked for immediate delivery, this period would have been reduced to three days, until April 6, 2017 at midnight, under article L312-47 of the Consumer Code.
You have 59.39% of this article to read. The rest is reserved for subscribers.
