The parcel that never came: the written walkthrough

Myth · The seller has a point: once dispatched, it is the courier's business. I open a claim with the courier.

The myth: dispatched, therefore no longer their problem The official page of the Union writes exactly the opposite: the trader's responsibility runs from dispatch until you receive the goods. They chose that courier, they hold a contract with that courier, so it is for them to go after the courier. Your contract is the sale.

“The trader is responsible for any damage to your goods from the time they are dispatched until you receive them.”

In plain words: between their warehouse and your hands, whatever happens to the parcel remains the seller's business. Your claim goes to them.

Myth · I wait a little longer: parcels always turn up in the end.

The myth: it will turn up eventually Maybe. But the official page of the Union does not ask you to hope: it asks you to act, in two steps. Tell the trader the order has not arrived, and give them an additional, reasonable time limit to deliver. That notice is what turns your waiting into a case, and that time limit is what will arm everything that follows.

“If you don't receive your goods within 30 days, or within the agreed time, you should remind the trader giving them an additional, reasonable time limit to deliver.”

In plain words: past 30 days, or past the agreed date, you stop waiting in silence. You write, you set a time limit, you put a date on the file.

Myth · The law sets no delivery time limit at all: whatever the website writes is what counts.

The myth: no legal time limit, it is all in the small print The time limit exists, and it is written in a Directive that sets this floor everywhere in the Union: without undue delay, and not later than 30 days from the conclusion of the contract, unless another time of delivery was agreed. A line of small print that says “guidance only” does not make an Article of law disappear.

“1. Unless the parties have agreed otherwise on the time of delivery, the trader shall deliver the goods by transferring the physical possession or control of the goods to the consumer without undue delay, but not later than 30 days from the conclusion of the contract.”

In plain words: the default ceiling is 30 days, everywhere in the Union, as a minimum. It does not dissolve in the small print.

Myth · 30 days have passed: the contract is cancelled by itself, the refund will go out automatically.

The myth: time limit passed, contract cancelled automatically The text provides no automatism: it gives you a move to play. It is you who calls upon the trader to deliver within an additional period of time appropriate to the circumstances. And it is only if that period is not kept that you are entitled to terminate the contract. Without that call, your case has not even begun.

“2. Where the trader has failed to fulfil his obligation to deliver the goods at the time agreed upon with the consumer or within the time limit set out in paragraph 1, the consumer shall call upon him to make the delivery within an additional period of time appropriate to the circumstances. If the trader fails to deliver the goods within that additional period of time, the consumer shall be entitled to terminate the contract.”

In plain words: first an additional period set in writing, only then the end of the contract. It is a staircase, not a switch.

Myth · An additional period? More free patience. I demand an immediate refund, full stop.

The myth: I owe them nothing, refund me right now The text does provide for immediate termination, but in named cases: the trader has refused to deliver, or delivery by a specific date was essential and announced before the order. A hiking backpack with no announced deadline is not one of them. For every other case, the additional-period step is mandatory, and it is what makes your position unassailable.

“The first subparagraph shall not be applicable to sales contracts where the trader has refused to deliver the goods or where delivery within the agreed delivery period is essential taking into account all the circumstances attending the conclusion of the contract or where the consumer informs the trader, prior to the conclusion of the contract, that delivery by or on a specified date is essential. In those cases, if the trader fails to deliver the goods at the time agreed upon with the consumer or within the time limit set out in paragraph 1, the consumer shall be entitled to terminate the contract immediately.”

In plain words: immediate termination exists for a refusal to deliver or an essential date announced in advance, like a dress for a wedding. Otherwise, the additional period comes first.

Myth · I take the €80 credit note: it is more than I paid, refusing would be silly.

The myth: a credit note bigger than the price is a good deal A credit note is only worth something at the shop that imposes it, and it extinguishes the one thing the text grants you: money. The paragraph on termination knows one verb, reimburse, and one object, all sums paid. The words “credit note” appear nowhere in it. Accepting means trading a right for a repurchase voucher.

“3. Upon termination of the contract, the trader shall, without undue delay, reimburse all sums paid under the contract.”

In plain words: the text says reimburse, not credit. You may prefer the credit note, but it is a choice, never an obligation.

Myth · Terminating a contract is done before a judge. An email cannot possibly be enough.

The myth: termination requires a courtroom The right to terminate arises from the text itself, as soon as the additional period has not been kept. The official page of the Union phrases it as a right you exercise, not a lawsuit you file. Write it, date it, keep the proof: the judge is the step after, and only if the seller refuses to return the money.

“If the trader still doesn't deliver within the extended deadline then you're entitled to terminate your contract and be reimbursed as soon as possible.”

In plain words: this right is exercised in writing, directly with the seller. The court is a remedy, not a prerequisite.

Myth · Sixty days is their procedure: every shop is entitled to its own.

The myth: internal procedure is law An internal procedure organises a company's work, it does not rewrite the company's obligations. The text requires reimbursement without undue delay, and the official page of the Union says as soon as possible. Sixty days announced in advance is not a delay apologising: it is a delay being scheduled.

“3. Upon termination of the contract, the trader shall, without undue delay, reimburse all sums paid under the contract.”

In plain words: “without undue delay” is the rule of the text. A house policy cannot slow a right down.

Myth · The delivery costs are gone: the transport did happen, after all.

The myth: a failed delivery still gets paid for You did not buy a lorry ride, you paid to receive a backpack. The text brings everything back to a single measure: all sums paid under the contract. What you paid for delivery is part of it, and the risk of the transport, for its part, never stopped being the seller's.

“3. Upon termination of the contract, the trader shall, without undue delay, reimburse all sums paid under the contract.”

In plain words: contract terminated, account reset to zero. There is no line reading “delivery costs remain with the shop” in this paragraph.