As it is usual in the Northern Countries, Finland has a very far-reaching consumer protection act. In this act the rights of the consumer in a sales contract are minutely regulated. According to this act the buyer has the rights to subsequent improvement, reduction, modification of price and damages corresponding to the international standard.

It is notable that these rights do not only concern the seller but even all enterprises which have sold the product on an earlier stage in order to sell it further. Thus guarantee claims are valid even against the manufacturer, the wholesale company, the import agency etc. The only restriction is that any company is only liable as far as the product was already defect when leaving its area. It is the company who bears the proof burden in these cases.

The regulations of the consumer protection act are imperative and cannot be restricted by contract. The consequences hereof can be very unpleasant if the German company has no knowledge about the provisions in question but nevertheless tries by contract, and especially by general conditions of sale, to put itself in an advantageous position regarding liability and at the same time reach a good advertising effect on the market.

Thus very often manufacturer guarantees are granted, which assure the final customer of a very extensive workable period of the product. At the same time restrictive conditions are often made for a guarantee claim: The customer bears the burden of proof of the correct handling of the product, the liability is restricted to a certain sum, a German place of jurisdiction is determined and the customer is imposed to send the product on his own account to an authorized special dealer.

All these conditions are invalid according to the Finnish customer protection act! As soon as a company on an earlier stage in the selling chain overtakes a function guarantee towards the customer or assures him of other characteristics, a liability for defects in these qualities becomes automatically valid. A defect is assumed if the manufacturer is not able to prove probable incorrect handling by the customer. The customer then has full rights, i. e. no costs shall arise him by a subsequent improvement, he is entitled to full damage and he can sue at his home court.

As the Finnish customer usually is very well aware of his rights, the advertising effect desired when granting the guarantee can easily turn to its opposite due to the restricting formulations compared with the legal provisions.

As a result any company should, when extending its business to Finland (as well as other countries), take a lawyer’s advice before using on a foreign market such familiar conditions which work well at home.