Price increases from 3 months after the conclusion of the contract only if the contractor has set this condition and: price, taxes, possible delivery costs the way the contract was concluded and the necessary signatures, if the right to terminate the method of payment, delivery and execution of the contract the time for acceptance of the offer or the time within which the contractor guarantees to apply the level of the tariff the cost of using the technology for remote communication, if the agreement is archived after the conclusion and, if so, how to consult the consumer, how, before the contract is concluded, the consumer can verify and, if necessary, restore the information provided by the ourum under the contract, including Dutch, for which codes of conduct can be consulted before the contract is concluded. how the professional is subject and how the consumer can access codes of conduct electronically; and the minimum duration of the remote contract in the event of a length transaction. If the consumer has accepted the offer electronically, the professional immediately confirms electronically that he has received acceptance of the offer. Until the professional confirms acceptance, the consumer can terminate the contract. These are the result of legislation or regulation, or the consumer is allowed to terminate the contract from the date the price increase comes into effect. Prices listed in the offer include VAT. The consumer may, in the agreements mentioned in the paragraph already mentioned: even more precisely, a recent guidance of the Supreme Court of Italy  has considered that a party who can claim the performance of an obligation – the execution is still quite possible – can refuse it (and can claim the reimbursement of a consideration already paid) if, due to a change in circumstances, , the actual function of the contract (“causa in concreto”) is frustrated. In other words, although the performance of the typical obligation of a contract remains technically possible when non-partisan and unpredictable circumstances (outside the control of the party) occur that prevent a party from obtaining a performance (for example. B in the case considered by the Court, the serious illness of a buyer of a vacation package, which led the judges to terminate the contract in question and to take into account the customer for the reimbursement of the price paid). , this party has the right to refuse the benefit and to regard the contract as avoidable because of the subsequent absence of its “causa in concreto”. The relevance of this doctrine in the current scenario is manifested at least in circumstances where, even if there is no “factum principis” to prevent performance, the effects of the pandemic irretrievably outwi the very reason for the transaction.