Art. 76: The ‘Stick to the Language’ Rule

Abstract

Article 76 on ‘Language’ wanted to establish the ‘stick to the language’ rule for post-contractual communication. The scope of the rule would have been modest as it only applied if no legal provisions on language apply and if the parties have not entered into a language agreement. Nevertheless, the provision would have posed serious threats to consumers. The ‘stick to the language’ rule would have applied to any type of post-contractual communication including the termination of the contract and disputes about remedies. Moreover, it did not clarify the consequences of the use of the ‘wrong’ language. Therefore, it might have been interpreted so as to make declarations invalid even if the addressee understands that ‘wrong’ language. This would not only deteriorate the position of the consumer as compared to current national rules; legal uncertainty also works against the consumer generally. Thus, the ‘stick to the language’ rule needs clarification and limitation, and actual understanding of declarations must prevail over it.