Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in
Book cover

Encyclopedia of Law and Economics pp 572–579Cite as

Distance Selling and Doorstep Contracts

  • Reference work entry
  • First Online:

  • 33 Accesses

Abstract

Distance-selling and off-premises contracts are two major ways in which consumers and sellers interact. Law and economics research has established that these interactions potentially suffer from market power of sellers, from both ex-ante and ex-post information asymmetries, and from consumer bounded rationality. The most promising tool analysed and advocated by law and economics scholars is a cooling-off period coupled with a right of the consumer to withdraw from the contract. This entry surveys law and economics research on these concerns. Interestingly, relevant questions to this line of research remain, which have been brought to attention mainly by insights from behavioral economics. To exemplify and inspire further research along these lines, this entry discusses potentially perverse incentives created by withdrawal rights and the impact of fairness concerns on the consumer choice to withdraw.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD   819.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD   1,099.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Learn about institutional subscriptions

References

  • Akerlof G (1970) The market for “lemons”: quality uncertainty and the market mechanism. Q J Econ 84:488–500

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ben-Shahar O, Posner R (2011) The right to withdraw in contract law. J Legal Stud 40:115–148

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Borges G, Irlenbusch B (2007) Fairness crowded out by law: an experimental study on withdrawal rights. J Inst Theor Econ 163:84–101

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bourgoignie T (1992) Characteristics of consumer law. J Consum Policy 14(3):293–315

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Coricelli G, Critchley HD, Joffily M, O’Doherty JP, Sirigu A, Dolan RJ (2005) Regret and its avoidance: a neuroimaging study of choice behavior. Nat Neurosci 8:1255–1262

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eidenmüller H (2011) Why withdrawal rights. Eur Rev Contract Law 7:1–24

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Emons W (1989) The theory of warranty contracts. J Econ Surv 3:43–57

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Engel C (2013) Legal experiments: mission impossible? Eleven International Publishing, The Hague

    Google Scholar 

  • Dickie J (1998) Consumer confidence and the EC directive on distance contracts. J Consum Policy 21:217–229

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Falk A, Fischbacher U (2006) A theory of reciprocity. Game Econ Behav 54:293–315

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fehr E, Gächter S (2000) Fairness and retaliation: the economics of reciprocity. J Econ Perspect 14:159–181

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Frank RH (2008) Microeconomics and behavior, 7th edn. McGraw-Hill, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Frederick S, Loewenstein GF, O’Donoghue T (2002) Time discounting and time preference: a critical review. J Econ Literat 40:351–401

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gilbert DT, Wilson TD (2007) Prospection: experiencing the future. Science 317:1351–1354

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goetz CJ, Scott RE (1980) Enforcing promises: an examination of the basis of contract. Yale Law J 89:1261–1322

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hoeppner S (2012) The unintended consequence of doorstep consumer protection: surprise, reciprocation, and consistency. Eur J Law Econ. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10657-012-9336-1

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kahneman D, Knetsch JL, Thaler R (1986) Fairness as a constraint on profit seeking. Am Econ Rev 76:728–741

    Google Scholar 

  • Kaplow L, Shavell S (1999) The conflict between notions of fairness and the pareto principle. Am Law Econ Rev 1:63–77

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Konow J (2003) Which is the fairest one of all? A positive analysis of justice theories. J Econ Literat 41:1188–1239

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Korobkin R (2003) The endowment effect and legal analysis. Northwest Univ Law Rev 96:1227–1293

    Google Scholar 

  • Lele MM (2007) Monopoly rules: how to find, capture, and control the world’s most lucrative markets in any business. Kogan Page, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Loewenstein GF, O’Donoghue T, Rabin M (2003) Projection bias in predicting future utility. Q J Econ 118:1209–1248

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Loewenstein GF, Schkade D (1999) Wouldn’t it be nice: predicting future feelings. In: Kahneman D, Diener E, Schwartz N (eds) Well-being: the foundations of hedonic psychology. Russel Sage, New York, pp 85–105

    Google Scholar 

  • Loos M (2009) Rights of withdrawal. In: Howells G, Schulze R (eds) Modernising and harmonising consumer contract law. Sellier, Munich, pp 237–278

    Google Scholar 

  • Nicolao L, Irvin JR, Goodman JK (2009) Happiness for sale: do experiential purchases make consumers happier than material purchases? J Consum Res 36:188–198

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • OFT Market Study on Doorstep Selling (2004) Available at: http://www.oft.gov.uk/OFTwork/markets-work/completed/doorstep-selling. Accessed 16 July 2014

  • Rekaiti P, Van den Bergh R (2000) Cooling-off periods in the consumer laws of the EC member states: a comparative law and economics approach. J Consum Policy 23:371–407

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Singer J (2008) Normative methods for lawyers. Harvard Law School Public Law Research Paper No. 08–05

    Google Scholar 

  • Stremitzer A (2012) Opportunistic termination. J Law Econ Org 28:381–406

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Trebilcock MJ (1993) The limits of freedom of contract. Harvard University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Van Boven L, Gilovich T (2003) To do or to have? That is the question. J Pers Soc Psychol 85:1193–1202

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weatherill S (2005) EU Consumer Law and Policy. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar

    Book  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Center for Advanced Studies in Law and Economics (CASLE), Ghent University Law School, Ghent, Belgium

    Sven Hoeppner

  2. Guest Researcher, Max Planck Institute for Research on Collective Goods, Bonn, Germany

    Sven Hoeppner

Authors
  1. Sven Hoeppner
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Sven Hoeppner .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. MRE and University of Montpellier, Montpellier, France

    Alain Marciano

  2. Faculté d’Economie, Université de Montpellier and LAMETA-UMR CNRS, Montpellier, France

    Alain Marciano

  3. DiGSPES, University of Eastern Piedmont, Alessandria, Italy

    Giovanni Battista Ramello

  4. IEL, Torino, Italy

    Giovanni Battista Ramello

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2019 Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature

About this entry

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this entry

Hoeppner, S. (2019). Distance Selling and Doorstep Contracts. In: Marciano, A., Ramello, G.B. (eds) Encyclopedia of Law and Economics. Springer, New York, NY. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-7753-2_537

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation