This paper is devoted to the issue of the content of the proof of purchase of a product or provision of a service (hereinafter referred to as the “proof of purchase“), as follows from the relevant provisions of Section 16 of Act No. 634/1992 Coll., on Consumer Protection Act, as amended (hereinafter referred to as the “CPA“).
General requirements for the proof of purchase
The issue may seem clear at first glance, as Section 16 of the CPA explicitly states what elements the proof of purchase must contain. In practice, however, a number of pitfalls can be encountered.
This article focuses on the content of the proof of purchase according to the CPA, however, if the seller[1] issues only one document to the customer (which is usually the rule), then the proof of purchase must, in addition to the requirements according to the CPA, also meet other content requirements according to other legislation, namely according to Act No. 455/1991 Coll., on trade business (Trade Licensing Act), as amended,[2] or according to the relevant tax regulations.[3]
According to the aforementioned provisions of Section 16 of the CPA, the proof of purchase must contain the following information about the purchased goods or services provided:
(i) the date of sale of the product or provision of the service,
(ii) what product or service is involved – i.e. identification of the object of sale,
(iii) an indication of the price at which the product was sold or the service was provided,
(iv) identification data of the seller, which shall include at least the name and surname of the seller or its name or business name, or the name of the seller and its identification number (unless a special legal regulation provides otherwise).
In addition to the above, the law further regulates other potentially necessary elements of the proof of purchase in specific cases, namely:
(i) in the case of a sale of a product with subsequent delivery, the proof of purchase must also include the destination and date of delivery;[4]
(ii) in the case of the sale of used or modified products, defective products or products whose useful properties are otherwise limited, the proof of purchase must contain a clear indication
of these facts.[5]
Written form of the proof of purchase
Sellers and service providers are only obliged to issue a proof of purchase at the consumer’s request and are logically obliged to do so in writing.
As to the question whether a paper form of the proof of purchase is necessary, it can be stated that the CPA does not impose such an obligation, from which we conclude
that the electronic form of the proof of purchase is possible and acceptable even under the current wording of the legal regulation.[6]
Failure to issue a proof of purchase
On the contrary, any failure by the seller to comply with the obligation to issue a properly completed proof of purchase at the request of the consumer may be sanctioned by the inspection body (here the Czech Trade Inspection Authority) as an offence with a fine of up to CZK 1,000,000.
Selected problematic aspects of the information to be included in the proof of purchase
As it has already been presented above, although the CPA contains an exhaustive (i.e. complete) list of requirements that must be met by a proof of purchase, in practice doubts and ambiguities often arise over their specific form in a given case.
Difficulties may arise in the seemingly obvious requirement of the proof of purchase, which is the obligation to identify the goods sold or service provided, where the CPA states that “the seller is obliged to issue a document indicating […] what product or service is involved“[7]. The CPA therefore does not specify the level of detail required on the identification of the goods sold or services provided.
It seems logical that the identification of the goods sold or services provided should be so definite and specific that the proof of purchase should clearly and unmistakably indicate which specific goods or services are involved in the given case – typically, this can be solved in particular by indicating the type of product, its manufacturer and its commercial designation, or, in the case of services, its description, etc.
There will of course be many possible variations depending on the goods sold or services provided. However, it must always be borne in mind that this identification must be clear and unmistakable. In this context, mention may be made, for example, of a recent judgment of the Supreme Administrative Court, Case No. 4 As 222/2022-36 of 27 April 2023, in which the Supreme Administrative Court considered, inter alia, a situation in which the seller issued a proof of purchase in which he identified four items of goods sold (two bottles, one pair of children’s cycling gloves and one bicycle bell) as ‘cash items’ only. The Supreme Administrative Court logically found such a designation to be a clear violation of the CPA, and we concur.
Another potentially problematic element of the proof of purchase may be the price at which the product was sold or the services provided. Here too, doubts may arise as to the scope of information that the seller is obliged to include in the proof of purchase in order to fulfil the wording and purpose of Section 16 of the CPA. Even in this case, the CPA does not elaborate on what is meant by “the price at which the product was sold or the service was provided.” [8]
There will most probably be no doubt that this price will primarily be indication of the final price of the item to the consumer (i.e. including all taxes, duties and charges). However, it is not uncommon in commercial practice, particularly in the case of discount promotions, to see multiple amounts listed for an item. If, even in such a case, the final selling price of the item is indicated (typically the original price, the amount of the discount and the final price after the discount), this approach cannot, in our view, be faulted in the light of the CPA, provided that the individual amounts are clear and unambiguous for the consumer. However, it is appropriate to consider whether it is sufficient in the case outlined above to indicate only the original price and the amount of the discount for each item on the proof of purchase, i.e. without indicating the final selling price for each item. In general, we believe that this should still be compatible with the requirements of the CPA.
In practice, however, it is possible to encounter the opinion of some inspectorates of the Czech Trade Inspection Authority that, in order to protect the consumer, it is necessary to indicate the price of the product or service for each individual item, including the final selling price of the item after deduction of the discount. Although we acknowledge that, in terms of the wording of the CPA, this might already be a borderline case of informing the consumer about the price, we do not generally agree with the above conclusion of some inspection bodies.
By insisting on the final price after discount for each item, the inspection body is in this case basing itself practically on the assumed inability of the average consumer to carry out even a simple numerical operation (subtracting the amount of the discount from the original price). We consider such an approach to be incorrect, as it is unduly paternalistic and does not correspond to the concept of consumer legislation, which is based on the traditional concept of protecting the consumer who has at least the common sense of an ‘average’ person and the ability to use it with ordinary care and caution. From our perspective, the legislation cannot be interpreted to view the ‘average’ consumer as a person who cannot do even simple arithmetic without the aid of a calculator.
At the same time, account must be taken of the fact that the proof of purchase is issued to the consumer only after payment. The purchase in question has therefore already taken place and the consumer only learns from the proof of purchase how much he has already paid for the goods or services purchased and can check the correctness of the prices quoted at his leisure after the purchase.
We therefore consider the above view of some inspection bodies regarding the indication of the selling price of items on the proof of purchase to be generally incorrect; this is, of course, without prejudice to the need to always take into account the specific circumstances of the case.
Conclusion
The provisions of Section 16 of the CPA setting out the content of the proof of purchase appear at first sight to be generally clear and interpretatively unproblematic, but the proper inclusion of the required information may cause problems in practice, especially with regard to the identification of goods and services or their price.
In view of the fact that the Czech Trade Inspection Authority almost always focuses on the fulfilment of the seller’s obligation to issue a properly completed proof of purchase to the consumer, it can be recommended not to underestimate this matter, even though it may seem marginal. Otherwise, the seller exposes himself not only to the risk of being sanctioned for a specific offence, but also potentially to the risk of future increased scrutiny of his business activities by the inspection body.
At the same time, we would like to remind that if the seller issues only a single proof of purchase to the customer, then such a document must, in addition to the above-described requirements according to the CPA, also meet the content requirements according to other legal regulations, in particular according to the Trade Licensing Act and possibly according to tax regulations.
Should you have any questions about the above, or should you require any specific assistance, please do not hesitate to contact us at any time.
[1] A seller is defined as an entrepreneur who sells products or provides services to consumers.
[2] § Section 31(14), which, however, practically coincides with Section 16 of the CPA.
[3] In particular, it will concern the requirements of the tax document according to Act No. 235/2004 Coll., on value added tax, as amended.
[4] This typically applies to e.g. e-shop purchases with subsequent delivery of goods.
[5] We would like to note that the CPA also provides for specific identification obligations for the seller in the case of purchase of a used product or a product without a document of acquisition, acceptance of such a product as a pledge or intermediary or purchase or acceptance as a pledge – please see Section 16(4) of the CPA for more details.
[6] It can be assumed that legislation will tend to abandon paper documents and replace them with electronic ones, as it is already the case in France, for example.
[7] § 16 (1) ZOS.
[8] Ibid.
JUDr. Miloš Kulda, Ph.D., attorney – kulda@plegal.cz
Mgr. Kateřina Vyšínová, junior lawyer – vysinova@plegal.cz
3. 10. 2024