"Regulatory techniques in consumer protection: A critique of European consumer contract law." by Bar-Gill, Oren, and Omri Ben-Shahar.

Introduction
This is an excellent analysis of the consumer protection techniques provided under The Draft of Common European Sales Law (CESL), (2013). The critique of these techniques is well done, as the techniques are properly criticized by the authors in the discussion. The responses by the authors are astute and serve a very well way to highlight creative ways of thinking. The article is well written, logically structured and pleasure to read.

Synopsis
The Common European Sales Law (CESL) contains four of the most important consumer protection techniques that have been used in European Contract Law. This …show more content…
What is the purpose of the article?
The purpose of the article is to state the most important four consumer protection techniques under Common European Sales Law (CESL) and argues that these techniques are ineffective and harmful to consumers.
The authors clearly state the problems and describe the techniques clearly but author did not tell what he has accomplished in this article. The primary goal of the article is to protect consumers which are inconsistent to European contract law rules.

Is the article appropriate?
In my Opinion, the Article is appropriate as the author has rightly explained all the consumer protection techniques in a proper manner along with the law and discussions. The overall aim of the article is also clearly mentioned in the introduction but the research done by the authors is not sufficient as the authors has not provided with the sufficient …show more content…
B. At pg. 109, 3rd Para under the head “Introduction”, “Eighty-one (!) Provisions”, what is meant by this sign ‘(!)’?
C. At pg. 112, 2nd Para under the head “Mandatory Arrangements”, all eighty-one of the statute’s articles are not systematically critised or explained.
• This has rightly been explained under the article “Common European Sales Law: A critique of its rationales, functions, and unanswered questions”
D. At pg 115, 2nd Para under the head “Discussion”, ‘Mandatory rules are not bad by definition.’ What is meant by “not bad by definition? The statements made by the author are not clear as they are ambiguous.
E. The Article should define concepts such as ex post, ex ante, laisssez-faire, in order to avoid divergent interpretations.
F. There are also some interpretation problems due to missing, ambiguous or defective definitions. The systematic approach demands clarification too.
G. Some articles of CESL should be expanded as there is no clear explanation to any of the