Između zaštite potrošača i ograničene odgovornosti prijevoznika: razlika pri regresnom potraživanju u e-trgovini

This paper compares seller’s liability with the carrier’s liability and, if a recourse gap exist, looks at ways how the ambit of this gap can be reduced. EU Consumer law is highly protective and mandatory, not allowing derogations from its rules. Since the entry into force of the Consumer Rights Directive 2011 the risk of any loss or damage during delivery rests upon the seller. The Consumer Sales Directive contains the remedies available to the buyer in case of loss or damage during shipment. The priority remedies are reparation or replacement of the damaged package, free of any charge. Also in case of a delay in delivery, the Directive puts the risk with the seller and entitles the buyer to terminate the contract. Even though the seller can start a recourse action against the carrier, there can be a substantial recourse gap between the seller’s liability exposure and personal damage, and the liability exposure of the carrier. European transport law, which is to a large extent equally mandatory, provides only for limited compensation in case of loss or delay. The paper makes three types of recommendations to reduce the recourse gap or at least to make it more predictable. From a practical point of view, organisational and contractual techniques that allow parties to limit the recourse gap are first suggested. As the e-commerce sector contains a large number of start-ups and micro-entrepreneurs without great legal knowledge, suggestions are also made for an EU legal intervention aimed at preventing this gap from affecting the viability of e-commerce. The EU has not intervened in carrier liability so far. However, as the EU states that “[r]ealising the internal market for online services is one of the key factors in the effort to make the European Union the most competitive and dynamic knowledge-based economy in the world”, elimination of obstacles in carriage law to the development of these online services should also be of paramount importance for the EU.Jedna od prednosti e-trgovine, mogućnost dostave na kućnu adresu, istovremeno je i njezina bolna točka. Prema podacima Europske komisije 30 % potrošača ima iskustvo kašnjenja isporuke, a 8 % nikad nije primilo naručenu robu. Štoviše, poprilična količina robe ošteti se tijekom prijevoza. Prema pravu potrošača EU-a rizik štete, gubitka ili kašnjenja preuzima prodavatelj. U ovome ćemo izlaganju usporediti odgovornost prodavatelja s odgovornošću prijevoznika te, ako postoji razlika pri regresnom potraživanju, kako se ona može smanjiti. Pravo potrošača EU-a nudi visoku razinu zaštite i nalaže stroge obveze te ne dopušta odstupanje od pravila. Od Direktive o pravima potrošača iz 2011. rizik gubitka ili štete tijekom isporuke preuzima prodavatelj. Prema članku 20. Direktive rizik se prebacuje na potrošača tek nakon što potrošač, ili treća osoba koju odredi potrošač, dođe u fizički posjed robe. Direktiva o prodaji robe široke potrošnje propisuje pravne lijekove dostupne kupcu u slučaju gubitka ili štete nastale tijekom prijevoza. Glavni pravni lijekovi su nadoknada štete ili zamjena oštećenog proizvoda, i to besplatno. Isto tako, u slučaju kašnjenja isporuke Direktiva rizik stavlja na prodavatelja, a kupcu daje pravo raskida ugovora. Stoga, u slučaju gubitka, štete ili kašnjenja tijekom prijevoza prodavatelj će morati refundirati cijenu proizvoda, a možda i još neke druge troškove ili štetu kupcu (što ovisi o nacionalnom pravu). Iako prodavatelj može pokrenuti regresni spor protiv prijevoznika, moguća je oveća razlika u regresnom potraživanju zbog različitosti režima odgovornosti prodavatelja i odgovornosti prijevoznika. Europsko transportno pravo, koje se u velikoj mjeri ujednačeno primjenjuje u državama članicama, propisuje ograničenu odgovornost prijevoznika za štete u slučaju gubitka ili kašnjenja (na primjer Montrealska konvencija predviđa ograničenje od 19 PPV-a po kilogramu izgubljene ili oštećene robe, a CMR 8.33 PPV-a, a ograničenje za zakašnjenje vezuje uz iznos vozarine). Uz to, u većini transportnih režima šteta se izračunava na apstraktan način na temelju tržišne vrijednosti robe. Posljedično, primjerice šteta za ugled, koja može biti iznimno velika u slučaju sezonskih poklona koji su neisporučeni ili kasne, nije pritom uzeta u obzir. Štoviše, odgovornost prijevoznika nije samo ograničena već je često nepredvidiva: u slučaju prijevoza s više prijevoznika, bilo da je riječ o viševrsnom (multimodalnom) prijevozu ili kojem drugom obliku integriranja prijevoznih operacija, ostaje nejasno koji bi se režim odgovornosti trebao primijeniti, odnosno kolika bi bila odšteta, sve dok se ugovor ne izvrši. U ovome izlaganju dajemo tri vrste preporuka za smanjenje razlike pri regresnom potraživanju ili za lakše predviđanje te razlike. S praktičnog gledišta najprije se predlažu organizacijske i ugovorne tehnike koje će strankama omogućiti da te razlike smanje. Budući da sektor e-trgovine uključuje velik broj novih i mikro poduzetnika koji najčešće nemaju dovoljno pravnog znanja, dajemo prijedloge kako bi se pravnom intervencijom na razini EU-a mogao spriječiti utjecaj te razlike na opstanak e-trgovine. Dosad EU nije intervenirao u odgovornost prijevoznika. Međutim, budući da sama Unija kaže da je “ostvarenje unutarnjeg tržišta za online usluge jedan od ključnih čimbenika u nastojanju da Europska unija postane jedna od najkonkurentnijih i dinamičnih ekonomija temeljenih na znanju u svijetu”, uklanjanje prepreka u transportnom pravu koje koče razvoj mrežnih usluga trebalo bi biti jedan od prioriteta Europske unije

Commercieel gebruik van drones: bedreig(en)de vogels?

status: publishe

Inferring choice criteria with mixture IRT models: A demonstration using ad hoc and goal-derived categories

Whether it pertains to the foods to buy when one is on a diet, the items to take along to the beach on one’s day off or (perish the thought) the belongings to save from one’s burning house, choice is ubiquitous. We aim to determine from choices the criteria individuals use when they select objects from among a set of candidates. In order to do so we employ a mixture IRT (item-response theory) model that capitalizes on the insights that objects are chosen more often the better they meet the choice criteria and that the use of different criteria is reflected in inter-individual selection differences. The model is found to account for the inter-individual selection differences for 10 ad hoc and goal-derived categories. Its parameters can be related to selection criteria that are frequently thought of in the context of these categories. These results suggest that mixture IRT models allow one to infer from mere choice behavior the criteria individuals used to select/discard objects. Potential applications of mixture IRT models in other judgment and decision making contexts are discussed

When cheating is an honest mistake

Dishonesty is an intriguing phenomenon, studied extensively across various disciplines due to its impact on people’s lives as well as society in general. To examine dishonesty in a controlled setting, researchers have developed a number of experimental paradigms. One of the most popular approaches in this regard, is the matrix task, in which participants receive matrices wherein they have to find two numbers that sum to 10 (e.g., 4.81 and 5.19), under time pressure. In a next phase, participants need to report how many matrices they had solved correctly, allowing them the opportunity to cheat by exaggerating their performance in order to get a larger reward. Here, we argue, both on theoretical and empirical grounds, that the matrix task is ill-suited to study dishonest behavior, primarily because it conflates cheating with honest mistakes. We therefore recommend researchers to use different paradigms to examine dishonesty, and treat (previous) findings based on the matrix task with due caution