The Consumer as Defendant — the Protective Framework
When a trader brings a debt-collection claim against a consumer, the Law on Consumer Protection provides special instruments of defence. The core of these instruments is the voidness of unfair standard terms: an unfair standard term is void, notwithstanding its presence in the contract, where it contradicts the principles of trust and good faith and causes an unjustified imbalance of the rights and obligations provided by the contract to the consumer's detriment, including through its ambiguity. In the assessment, the subject matter of the contract, the circumstances existing at its conclusion and the other terms are taken into account — but not the essence of the main subject matter or the adequacy of the price.
Which Terms Are Void
The law directly names the unfair terms that are void. Among them: excluding or limiting the trader's liability for the consumer's death, injury to health or other damage caused by the trader's act or omission; unfairly restricting the consumer's right to bring a claim; obliging the consumer to perform where the trader's performance depends only on its own will; the right to retain sums paid; an obligation to pay more than the damage; unilateral withdrawal from the contract; automatic prolongation; vague determination of terms; binding the consumer by terms it had no real possibility of becoming acquainted with before conclusion; unilateral amendments and determination of the price at the moment of supply; and the unilateral interpretation of whether the goods conform. This list is the object of the first check against a creditor's claim. It also matters that voidness does not depend on the term's "presence": an unfair term is void notwithstanding that it figures in the contract and the consumer signed it — a signature cannot preclude voidness. Defence therefore begins with comparing every term of the contract against this list, not with whether the consumer agreed to the term at the time of conclusion.
The law also sets a precise algorithm for assessing unfairness: in assessing a standard term, account is taken of the subject matter of the contract, the circumstances at its conclusion that led to the inclusion of the term, and the other terms; neither the essence of the main subject matter nor the adequacy of the price in relation to the goods or services is considered. The rule of partial invalidity matters as well: the invalidity of an unfair term does not invalidate the other parts, if the term is not essential and the contract can be presumed concluded without it — the dispute often revolves around individual provisions.