For example, EU law provides that no Council decision can be binding and executory unless it was voted by two-thirds of the Council membership. This paper discusses the conflicts often engendered by acts of the Council that have not been introduced into the national laws of member states, as well as the integrity and applicability of its decisions. In so doing, the paper presents two case scenarios involving consumer welfare and fair trade promotion as embodied in acts of the Council that run into controversy.The European Council, seeking to bolster consumer protection laws in member states, adopted a directive on May 1, 2005, granting consumers the right to cancel any mail-order purchase of goods or services if done within 15 days of placement. Within seven days upon receipt of such notice, the supplier shall make a full refund of the contract price to the consumer, minus a reasonable amount for administrative and handling costs. EU member states were enjoined to implement the directive by May 1, 2007, but the UK dragged its feet on the measure and was yet to incorporate this Directive into its national laws until July 5, 2007. On this exact date, Brighton businesswoman Christina ordered a new computer system from Avalon Computers Ltd., a mail-order firm in Reading specializing in computer equipment for professional graphic design. After making the full payment of 3,000 pounds, the equipment was delivered to Christina’s shop a few days later. A day after delivery, however, Christina lost her American clients who had specified new designs that required the new computer system. Without these clients, the equipment was hardly needed by Christina’s design studio so she faxed Avalon for a return of the computer, which was still crated and untouched. Avalon denied the request, indicating that there is a UK law allowing the no-return policy on the purchase of goods.