учебный год 2023 / Kalamees, Lilleholt, Early Termination of Consumer Contracts for the Leasing of Cars under Estonian and Norwegian Laws

European Review of Private Law 4-2014 [545–558] © Kluwer Law International BV. Printed in Great Britain.

Early Termination of Consumer Contracts for the Leasing of Cars under Estonian and Norwegian Laws*

PIIA KALAMEES & KÅRE LILLEHOLT**

Abstract: The article deals with the contractual liability of the consumer in cases where a contract for the leasing of a car has been terminated during the lease period because of non-performance of the consumer’s obligations as a lessee under the contract. Under Estonian law, there are many Supreme Court cases in which the court has set aside contract terms concerning the procedure for calculating the expenses reimbursable to the lessor. Similar clauses in Norwegian leasing contracts have not led to litigation so far. Possible explanations for this difference may be found in the regulation of leasing contracts in the two countries and in the different approaches to control unfair terms in consumer contracts. Legal culture is deemed to be a less appropriate tool for analysis in a case like this. The authors suggest that it might be worth considering whether the rules on consumer leasing contracts should be harmonized at the European level.

Resumé: Cet article traite de la responsabilité contractuelle du consommateur quand un bailleur met prématurément fin à un contrat de leasing d’un véhicule pour cause de non performance des obligations contractuelles du preneur. En droit estonien, il existe de nombreuses décisions de la Cour Suprême dans lesquelles la Cour a annulé des clauses contractuelles concernant la procédure de calcul des frais remboursables au bailleur. En Norvège, ces mêmes clauses n’ont pas encore donné lieu à des litiges. Cette divergence pourrait s’expliquer par des différences dans la réglementation des contrats de leasing et dans le contrôle des clauses abusives dans les contrats de consommation. La culture juridique n’est pas forcément l’outil adapté à ce genre d’analyse. Les auteurs suggèrent qu’il serait intéressant d’envisager une harmonisation au niveau européen des règles concernant les contrats de leasing conclus avec des consommateurs.

Zusammenfassung: Der vorliegende Artikel thematisiert die vertragliche Haftung des Leasingnehmers beim privaten Fahrzeugleasing, wenn der Leasingvertrag vorzeitig wegen Nichterfüllung vom Leasinggeber gekündigt wird. Zum estnischen Recht gibt es eine Reihe von Entscheidungen des obersten Gerichtshofs, in welchen es die Vertragsbedingungen über das Verfahren für die Berechnung der erstattungsfähigen Aufwendungen an den Leasinggeber für unzulässig erklärt hat. Vergleichbare Klauseln

*The research leading to these results received funding from the Norway Financial Mechanism 2009–2014 under Project Contract No. EMP 205. Finansieringsselskapenes Forening (The Association of Norwegian Finance Houses), under Director Jan Fr. Haraldsen, provided valuable information on leasing practice and contract terms in Norway. We remain responsible for all possible misunderstandings and for all opinions expressed in the article.

**Piia Kalamees is a Lecturer of Civil Law in the Faculty of Law, University of Tartu. Kåre Lilleholt is a Professor in the Faculty of Law, University of Oslo.

545

in norwegischen Leasingverträgen sind bisher gerichtlich nicht überprüft worden. Mögliche Gründe könnten zum einen in der unterschiedlichen Regulierung der Leasingverträge selbst zu finden sein, wie auch in den divergierenden Ansätzen unzulässige Klauseln in Verbraucherverträgen zu kontrollieren. Die Rechtskultur gilt als ein weniger geeignetes Instrument für die Analyse eines derartigen Falles. Die Autoren schlagen daher vor, dass es sinnvoll sein könnte zu prüfen, ob die Vorschriften über Verbraucherleasingverträge auf europäischer Ebene harmonisiert werden sollten.

1.Introduction

The article deals with the contractual liability of the consumer in cases where a contract for the leasing of a car has been terminated during the lease period because of non-performance of the consumer’s obligations as a lessee under the contract. The Estonian Supreme Court has in several judgments set aside contract terms concerning the procedure for calculating the expenses reimbursable to the lessor. Similar clauses in Norwegian leasing contracts have so far not led to litigation. Our aim is to compare the relevant law in Estonia and in Norway and to look for explanations for the different reactions on the part of the consumers.

‘Leasing’ is not a notion that can be defined clearly for comparative purposes. In the Estonian Law of Obligations Act (LOA), liisinguleping (a word derived from the English ‘leasing’) is defined as a contract in which ‘the lessor undertakes to acquire a certain object (the object of leasing) from a seller determined by the lessee and to grant use of the object to the lessee, and the lessee is required to pay a fee for use of the object of leasing’.1 Even this precise definition covers several variations, for example, regarding the lease period, the extent to which the total agreed rent is meant to amortize the value of the goods, and the possible right or even obligation for the lessee to become owner of the goods. Norwegian legislation has no definition of ‘leasing’.

‘Leasing’ (or ‘financial leasing’) is often a keyword for transactions where the lessor has the role of a financing party and where the contract may be regarded as an alternative to a purchase financed by a loan.2

Cars are regularly the object of leasing contracts, in particular when it comes to consumer contracts. Cars are relatively expensive movables that are regularly financed by loans or other credit arrangements. They are easy to identify and suitable objects for security rights in the form of ownership or reservation of ownership. Moreover, they are frequently bought and sold.

For our purposes, we shall concentrate on contracts not including the right

or obligation of the lessee to become owner. Further, we shall not discuss

1Võlaõigusseadus (Law of Obligations Act) – RT I 2001, 81, 487; RT I 29.11.2013, 4, Art. 416(3).

See Art. 361.

2K. LILLEHOLT, ‘Use of Movables. Leasing’, in: U. Drobnig (ed.), International Encyclopedia of Comparative Law, vol. VIII, Ch. 7 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2012), Nos 14–19.

546

short-term contracts for the use of cars for a few days or weeks, typically a car rented for the purposes of a trip to or from a foreign airport. Most of the contracts we look at involve three parties (supplier, lessor and lessee), thus falling within the definition in Article 361 of the Estonian LOA, but it should be added that in Norwegian contracts, the lessor is regularly an entity closely connected with the supplier. Contracts between businesses will not be dealt with (but some aspects of unfair terms in such contracts will be touched upon). Finally, we discuss only situations in which the lessor terminates the contract prior to the expiry of the agreed lease period for non-performance of the lessee’s obligations under the contract. Non-performance of the lessor’s obligations will not be dealt with. Possible rights for the lessee to terminate the contract by giving notice will be mentioned only as part of the legal framework.

2. Leasing Contracts and Legal Framework

2.1. Estonia

2.1.1.Leasing and Consumer Credit Contracts

As noted in the Introduction, Article 361 of the LOA defines a leasing contract. The main characteristic of a leasing contract is the fact that the lessor is obliged to acquire a certain object from a third party for the lessee’s use. If there is no such obligation, the contract is not considered to be a leasing contract under Estonian law.3 The Estonian Supreme Court has also clearly stated that a contract in which the obligor provides the lessee with an item that he already owns, without buying it from the seller according to the lessee’s instructions, should not be considered a leasing contract. If, in such cases, the object of the contract is a movable object and the lessee becomes the owner of the item at the end of the contract period, the contract should be regarded as a sales contract with a clause of reservation of ownership.4 If the contract includes a condition under which the lessee may use the item but must return it at the end of the contract period, the contract should be regarded as a lease contract.5 A contract where the lessor buys the leasing object from the lessee and then leases it back to the lessee (sale and lease back) is nevertheless considered to be a leasing contract.6

Under Estonian law, it makes no difference whether the lessee becomes the owner of the leasing object at the end of the contract term or not. Irrespective of

3Decision of the Estonian Supreme Court of 13 Feb. 2008, 3-2-1-140-07, para. 22, http://www.nc.ee/?id=11&tekst=RK/3-2-1-140-07.

4Article 233 LOA.

5Decision of the Estonian Supreme Court of 24 Apr. 2006, 3-2-1-21-06, para. 18, http://www.nc.ee/?id=11&indeks=0,2,10246,10633,12035&tekst=RK/3-2-1-21-06.

6Decision of the Estonian Supreme Court of 13 Feb. 2008, 3-2-1-140-07, para. 22.

547

the purpose of the contract, all contracts with the above-mentioned characteristics are considered to be leasing contracts.

Another important characteristic of a leasing contract under Estonian law is the allocation of risks between the lessor and the lessee. The lessee bears the risk of accidental loss or damage to the leasing object and the lessor is not as a rule liable to the lessee if the object of leasing does not conform to the contract.7

To protect the interests of the lessee, the lessee is granted the right to make the lessor’s claims as a buyer directly against the seller. Under this rule, the lessee has all the rights and obligations of the buyer, except the obligation to pay the price and the right to demand the transfer of the ownership of the object.8

As a rule, a leasing contract is also regarded as a credit contract.9 If credit is granted to a consumer by a creditor in the course of the latter’s economic or professional activities, then the regulation on consumer credit contracts is also applicable to the leasing contract.10 Article 421 of the LOA is of special importance in this regard as it states that agreements that derogate from the provisions of consumer credit in the LOA to the detriment of the consumer are void.

There are no limits set as to the duration of the leasing agreement. Usual practice among Estonian lessors is to conclude leasing agreements with a duration of up to seven years, depending mostly on whether it is a used car or not, and if used, how old the car is.

2.1.2.Directive 93/13/EEC on Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts

Estonia has also implemented Directive 93/13/EEC on unfair terms in consumer contracts by adding a separate division to the general part of the LOA. The directive has been implemented, including its annex with an indicative and non-exhaustive list of the terms regarded as unfair, in Article 42, paragraph 3 of the LOA. In a contract where one party is a consumer, a term is always considered to be unfair if the term is listed in this provision, while in contracts relating to the economic or professional activities of both parties the same terms are presumed to be unfair, a presumption that may be rebutted.11 Often these provisions on unfair contract terms play an important role in leasing contracts with regard to claims concerning expenses borne by the lessor.

7 Articles 364 and 362(3) LOA.

8Article 365 LOA.

9Articles 401(2) LOA. See P. Varul, I. Kull, V. Kõve, & M. Käerdi (eds), Võlaõigusseadus II. Kommenteeritud väljaanne (Tallinn: Juura, 2007), p 402.

10Article 402 LOA.

11Article 44 LOA.

548

As stipulated by the European Court of Justice, the national court has an ex officio obligation to review the standard terms of a contract.12 This review has been carried out by the Estonian Supreme Court in a number of cases regarding consumer leasing contracts.13

2.2. Norway

2.2.1.Leasing, Reservation of Title, and Consumer Credit Contracts

There is no general regulation of leasing contracts in Norwegian legislation. Some contracts that are formally lease contracts are redefined by legislation: a lease contract that ‘in reality’ secures a sales compensation is regarded as a sale combined with a ‘sales lien’ if the lessee is meant to become the owner.14 A ‘sales lien’ corresponds to a reservation of ownership in other legal systems. This redefinition of the contract has consequences for the rules concerning realization of the security right: the buyer is the owner and will receive a possible surplus, and for consumer contracts, there are mandatory rules protecting the buyer’s right during the realization process. Perhaps more important, if the lessee is meant to become the owner, the contract will not be accepted as a lease contract for tax purposes. For such reasons, lease contracts for movables will normally not even include a right for the lessee to become the owner.

If the consumer lessee has an obligation to become owner, the rules on consumer credit will apply. These are rules in the Financial Contracts Act, implementing Directive 2008/48/EC.15 It follows from what has just been said that leasing contracts obliging the lessee to become owner are unusual as well.

For one group in particular of consumer lease contracts, there are fragments of regulation.16 This set of rules relates to lease contracts that ‘in reality’ secure a sales compensation or in some other way have the same economic function as a sale of goods on credit, even if the lessee is not meant to become the owner. For such contracts, there is a requirement of pre-contractual information. Further, the lessee is entitled to terminate the lease by giving one month’s notice, although not with effect until at least three months from the start of the lease period. The right to terminate the contract will naturally be hard to accept for the lessor in exactly this type of contract, in which the lease period and the rent are typically fixed with a view to amortize the full value of the goods. Hence, the lessor will not offer contracts falling under these rules. The regulation seems to be of scarce practical importance, as might be expected.

12ECJ 4 Jun. 2009, C-243/08, Pannon GSM, para. 32; ECJ 9 Nov. 2010 C-137/08, Pénzügyi Lízing/Schneider, para. 56.

13See further ss 3 and 4.

14Lov 2/1980 om pant (Mortgage Act), s. 3-22.

15Lov 46/1999 om finansavtaler og finansoppdrag (Financial Contracts Act), s. 44(7).

16Financial Contracts Act, s. 44(7) and Administrative Regulation 654/2010, Ch 5.

549

2.2.2.Consumer Contracts for the Leasing of Cars

During the last decade, a particular type of consumer contract for the leasing of cars has become quite popular. The lease period is three years, sometimes shorter. There is no right – or obligation – for the consumer to become an owner. The lessor is, as earlier indicated, mostly a financing party closely connected to the supplier (the car dealer or importer). The total rent payable under the contract is calculated as an amortization of a loan covering only a part, normally about half, of the car’s initial value. The contract expressly stipulates the expected value of the car at the end of the lease period (and the supplier may have promised the lessor to buy the car back at this stipulated price).

Car leasing by consumers caught the interest of the Norwegian Consumer Ombudsman in 2005.17 The Consumer Ombudsman and the Market Council have been given power to ban the use of certain terms in contracts between businesses and consumers if the term is deemed unreasonable.18 The Consumer Ombudsman will regularly in such cases try to negotiate with businesses in order to introduce reasonable terms, thus avoiding a ban. This was precisely what happened for consumer car leasing contracts: one of the leasing businesses reached an agreement with the Consumer Ombudsman on the terms to be applied, and these ‘approved’ terms are now the basis of the contract terms recommended by the relevant business organization. These are the terms that will be commented upon under section 3.2.

2.2.3.Directive 93/13/EC on Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts and the General Clause on Unreasonable Contract Terms

Norway is bound, because of the EEA agreement, by Directive 93/13/EEC on unfair terms in consumer contracts. The directive has supposedly been implemented through section 36 of the Formation of Contracts Act, the so-called general clause on unreasonable contract terms, with some additional specifications in section 37 concerning non-negotiated terms.19 A court may, under these provisions, set aside or adjust a contract term that is deemed to have unreasonable effects. The indicative list of unfair terms in the Annex to the directive (the ‘grey’ list) has not been included in Norwegian legislation nor are there any other ‘black’ or ‘grey’ lists of unfair terms. As was explained in section 2.2.2, the Consumer Ombudsman and the Market Council may ban the use of certain terms. On the other hand, a court may, in principle, under the general

17Information based on documents from Journal No. 05/2026, Forbrukarombodet (the Consumer Ombudsman).

18Lov 2/2009 om kontroll med markedsføring og avtalevilkår mv. (Marketing Act), s. 22.

19Lov 31. mai 1918 nr. 2 om avslutning av avtaler, om fuldmagt og om ugyldige viljeserklæringer

(Formation of Contracts Act).

550

clause, set aside or adjust a term even if the term has been ‘approved’ by the Consumer Ombudsman in negotiations.

So far, there is no example of the Norwegian Supreme Court setting aside or adjusting a non-negotiated term on the sole basis of its being unfair. Section 36 of the Formation of Contracts Act has been invoked with success in a few cases, but all of them involved some additional elements (misleading information, mental status of the consumer, etc.). Directive 13/93/EEC was expressly mentioned by the Supreme Court for the first time in 2013, eighteen years after the directive was implemented.20

3.The Consumer’s Liability Following Early Termination of a Leasing Contract

3.1. Estonia

3.1.1.Lessor’s Right to Terminate the Leasing Contract Early in Case of Non-performance of the Lessee’s Obligations

Regarding termination of leasing contracts, there is only one special provision – Article 366 of the LOA. According to this provision, if the object of leasing is destroyed or becomes unusable or if the lessee exercises the lessor’s right (arising from the contract of sale with the seller) to terminate the sales contract, the lessor and the lessee may both terminate the leasing contract without advance notice. This article is also applicable in cases where the lessor has terminated the sales contract.21

As a leasing contract is, on most occasions, also considered to be a credit contract, rules on the termination of consumer credit contracts are applicable. In a case where credit is repayable in instalments, the creditor may terminate the consumer credit contract due to a delay in payment by the consumer subject to certain conditions: (1) the consumer is wholly or partly late for at least three consecutive repayments, (2) the creditor has granted an additional period of at least two weeks for the payment of the remaining amount, and (3) the creditor has at the same time notified the debtor that he will terminate the contract upon failure to pay the instalments within the additional period and will file a claim for payment of the whole debt.22 This is also the most common ground for terminating leasing contracts with consumers.

20K. LILLEHOLT, ‘Application of General Principles in Private Law in the Nordic Countries’, Juridica International 2013.

21Decision of the Estonian Supreme Court of 19 Apr. 2006, 3-2-1-29-06, para. 21, http://www. nc.ee/?id=11&tekst=RK/3-2-1-29-06.

22Article 416(1) LOA.

551

3.1.2.Consequences of Termination of the Leasing Contract

The special rules on the consequences of termination of a leasing contract are set out in Article 367 of the LOA.23 First, it states that the lessor has a reimbursement claim covering all the expenses the lessor has borne in connection to the leasing object.24 Specific rules on determining the sum that the lessee owes the lessor are set out in Article 367, paragraphs 2 and 3. It is important to note that the determination of expenses is based on outstanding rent (minus interest and other amounts not related to the expenses incurred for acquisition of the object of leasing). Thus, the lessor is considered a creditor and the credit made available to the lessee is equal to the expenses borne by the lessor in order to acquire the leasing object.25

In case of termination of a consumer credit contract, the debtor should return to the creditor an amount similar to that calculated according to Article 367, paragraph 2 of the LOA: the outstanding payments to cover the total cost of the credit, from which shall be deducted the interest and the costs to the consumer for the period the credit is not used.26 No derogation from this rule is possible in leasing contracts concluded with consumers because of Article 421 of the LOA, which states that agreements to detriment of the consumer are void.27

Where the leasing object is returned to the lessor on termination of the contract, the rule in Article 367, paragraph 2 of the LOA may create a situation in which the lessor is unjustly enriched. This will be the case if the lessor may claim both the leasing object and reimbursement of the expenses he has borne in order to purchase the object. If the leasing object at the time of termination has some remaining value, the lessor will be overcompensated. It is therefore stated in Article 367, paragraph 3 of the LOA that in cases where the object of leasing remains in the ownership of the lessor upon termination of the leasing contract, the value of the object of leasing at the time of return of the object to the lessor shall be taken into account in determining the amount of the claim for reimbursement of expenses under Article 367, paragraph 1.28

Given the purpose of this provision (avoiding the enrichment of the lessor), the value of the leasing object at the time of its return to the lessor should be taken into consideration.

23Decision of the Estonian Supreme Court of 19 Apr. 2006, 3-2-1-29-06, para. 23.

24Article 367(1) LOA. Through instalments (including interest), the credit is to be paid back to the lessor. See P. Varul, I. Kull, V. Kõve, & M. Käerdi (eds), Võlaõigusseadus II. Kommenteeritud väljaanne, p 329.

25Decision of the Estonian Supreme Court of 19 Apr. 2006, 3-2-1-29-06, para. 25. P. Varul, I. Kull, V. Kõve & M. Käerdi (eds), Võlaõigusseadus II. Kommenteeritud väljaanne, p 331.

26Article 416(3) LOA.

27Decision of the Estonian Supreme Court of 28 Feb. 2007, 3-2-1-1-07, p 25, http://www.nc. ee/?id=11&tekst=RK/3-2-1-1-07.

28See also the decision of the Estonian Supreme Court of 19 Apr. 06, 3-2-1-29-06, p 28.

552

According to the jurisprudence of the Estonian Supreme Court, the value of the leasing object is its market value at the time of its return to the lessor.29

Usually, the market value of the object corresponds to its average local selling price (Article 65 of the General Part of the Civil Code Act).30

It has been common among lessors to stipulate in contracts that in determining the reimbursable amount, the sales price of the leasing object (if it was sold following termination of the leasing contract) must be deducted from the sum of outstanding instalments (without interest).31

The Estonian Supreme Court has, on a number of occasions, stated that such agreements, if they are part of a contract concluded with a consumer on standard terms, are unfair and therefore void.32 Such agreements suggest that the lessor may unilaterally decide on the sales price of the leasing object and this could seriously harm the lessee’s interests. Therefore, this kind of contract term, if it is a standard term, is considered void according to Article 42, paragraph 3, subparagraph 5 of the LOA, because these terms deprive the lessee of his right to prove the actual costs and expenses supported by the lessor.33 If the standard term is void according to Article 41 of the LOA, the provisions of law concerning the relevant type of contract apply in lieu of such terms.

On this matter, the Supreme Court has also stated that the court may consider the sales price of the leasing object as the value of the leasing object at the time of its return to the lessor. This is especially so when the sales price of the leasing object is considerably higher than that stated in the lessor’s appraisal report.34 Taking the sales price into account in calculating the amount the lessor may claim is also possible when the sales price is equal to the value of the leasing object.35 In this case, while the standard term imposed is considered void for the aforementioned reasons, application of the provisions of the LOA (namely, Art. 367, para. 3) will lead to the same result.

29Decision of the Estonian Supreme Court of 28 Feb. 2007, 3-2-1-1-07, p 29.

30Tsiviilseadustiku üldosa seadus – RT I 2002, 35, 216; RT I 06.12.2010, 12.

31See, for example, the decisions of the Estonian Supreme Court of 28 Feb. 2007, 3-2-1-1-07, p 29 and 29.04.08, 3-2-1-33-08, p 17, http://www.nc.ee/?id=11&tekst=RK/3-2-1-33-08.

32Decisions of the Estonian Supreme Court of 28 Feb. 2007, 3-2-1-1-07, p 26 and 17.06.08, 3-2-1-56-08, p 14, http://www.nc.ee/?id=11&tekst=RK/3-2-1-56-08. The Supreme Court has

also stated that such terms are also unfair in contracts concluded on standard terms between two businesses (Decisions of the Estonian Supreme Court of 29 Apr. 2008, 3-2-1-33-08, p 17) and it is inadmissible to allow terms under which the lessee alone bears the risk of sale of the leasing object.

33Decision of the Estonian Supreme Court of 29 Apr. 2008, 3-2-1-33-08, p 18.

34Decisions of the Estonian Supreme Court of 9 Dec. 2008, 3-2-1-124-08, p 16, http://www.nc. ee/?id=11&tekst=RK/3-2-1-124-08 and 9 Dec. 2008, 3-2-1-118-08, p 18, http://www.nc. ee/?id=11&tekst=RK/3-2-1-118-08.

35This was exactly the case in the decision of the Estonian Supreme Court of 20 Jun. 2011, 3-2-1-52-11, p 15, http://www.nc.ee/?id=11&tekst=RK/3-2-1-52-11.

553

Under Estonian law, it is not prohibited for standard terms to include an agreement that the sales price of the leasing object shall be taken into account in determining the amount of reimbursement claim the lessor may claim. The Supreme Court has a number of times stated that such a term is not void, if the sales price does not differ much from the actual value of the leasing object and the lessor is obliged to make every effort to achieve the best and the quickest result in selling the leasing object.36 The sale must take place within a reasonable time and the nature of the thing and the possible reduction in its value over time must be taken into account. A reasonable difference in price compared to the value of the item is 10% according to the Court, and if the lessor achieves this result through a sale, he has fulfilled his obligation to seek the highest price possible.37

3.2.Norway

In the consumer contract terms for the leasing of cars recommended by the relevant business organization and ‘approved’ by the Consumer Ombudsman, there are two clauses dealing with termination of the contract prior to expiry of the lease period. The first of these clauses entitles the consumer to terminate the contract by giving one month’s notice in cases of what might be called ‘personal hardship’ or ‘personal force majeure’. The second clause deals with the consumer’s liability in other cases of early termination, typically termination by the lessor for non-performance.

Under the first clause, the consumer may terminate the contract by giving one month’s notice if unexpected serious health conditions make it impossible or very difficult to make use of the lessor’s performance (i.e., the car). In such cases, the consumer is only obliged to pay the rent due at the time of termination. This kind of relief in situations of personal force majeure is borrowed from legislation on two other types of consumer contracts (contracts on artisan services and on house building) but is still rather unusual in Norwegian contract law.38

The contract terms in use for car leasing to consumers are based on the premise that the regulation provided by the Financial Contracts Act for certain consumer lease contracts – allowing the consumer to terminate by giving one month’s notice without any specific reason – does not apply (see s. 2.2.1). The argument is that three-year car contracts are not contracts that ‘in reality’ secure

36Decision of the Estonian Supreme Court of 29 Apr. 2008, 3-2-1-33-08, p 18.

37Decisions of the Estonian Supreme Court of 6 Feb. 2013, 3-2-1-184-12, p 18, http://www.nc. ee/?id=11&tekst=RK/3-2-1-184-12 and 15.01.14, 3-2-1-156-13, p 11, http://www.nc.ee/?id=

11&tekst=RK/3-2-1-156-13.

38Lov 63/1989 om håndverkertjenester m.m. for forbrukere (Act on Consumer Contracts for Artisan Services), s. 40; lov 43/1997 om avtalar med forbrukar om oppføring av bustad m.m. (Act on Consumer Contracts for the Building of Houses), s. 52.

554