In the last ten years the Office of Fair Trading ‘OFT’ has considered over 9,000 consumer contracts under the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations (SI 1999/2083).
The regulations establish a challenging environment for those who draft consumer contracts to ensure compliance. They also offer an opportunity for consumers to challenge unfair terms in the courts or by complaining to the OFT or to their local Trading Standards Department.
The OFT publish details of their decisions in a quarterly Bulletin.
This article provides guidance on drafting consumer contracts and ensuring compliance with the regulations.
The regulations apply to non-negotiated contracts between business suppliers and consumers. The regulations do not apply to individually negotiated and to business-to-business contracts.
Unfair terms are not binding upon the consumer. But, a contract containing an unfair term continues to bind the parties so long as the contract is capable of continuing in existence minus the unfair term.
The regulations do not apply to the core terms of a contract – price and quality. But core terms only remain exempt from the regulations where they are expressed “in plain intelligible language.” Where the price or subject matter of a contract is difficult to ascertain or where some other uncertainty or lack of clarity is present within the contract, the regulations may apply.
The concept of fair dealing is the central aim of the regulations. If a contractual term is fair then it is vires the regulations. By regulation 5(1) a term is unfair if, “contrary to the requirement of good faith, it causes a significant imbalance in the parties’ rights and obligations under the contract, to the detriment of the consumer.”
Regulation 7(1) holds that consumer contracts must be written in plain and intelligible language. Technical phrases and jargon cannot be used. Words and phrases such as, ‘indemnify’, tort, ‘without prejudice, ‘time of payment shall be of the essence’, ‘irrevocably indemnify’, ‘warranted vehicles’, lien, ‘consequential loss’ and ‘implied by law’, have all been held by the OFT to be void.
Consumer contracts must also be clearly and legibly presented. Potentially detrimental and important terms should be highlighted. Contracts printed in small font and which some consumers may find illegible may be void. Sentences should be short and contain one contractual term per sentence.
Schedule 2 of the Regulations contains an indicative and non-exclusive list of 17 ‘grey terms’ which may be unfair. Although terms which fall within the scope of the list are only potentially unfair, it is likely that the OFT will consider them to be unfair in the absence of a countervailing term which redresses the balance in the consumers favour. Effectively, terms which fall within the grey list should be considered to be presumptively unfair.
The ‘grey terms’ are considered below.
The Regulation excludes terms which limit liability for death and injury. These terms should be avoided altogether.
A term which has as its object the limitation of the legal rights of a consumer in the event of partial or total non performance of the contract may be unfair. If any limitation is attempted it must be appropriate and in good faith. Any restriction of the consumers’ statutory rights will be void. Generally, the use of these terms should be avoided.
Terms which allow the supplier to unilaterally terminate all or part of the contract may be unfair. Terms which allow termination on an arbitrary basis will be always be difficult to justify. Terms which state that the contract may be terminated in the event of a material breach of contract may be fair. For example the OFT upheld a clause which allowed a canal boat operator to unilaterally refuse to release a boat where the renter was an unsuitable person. Unsuitability could include drunkenness and inability to operate the boat or for general safety reasons. If this type of term is used then an illustrative list of good reasons for refusal to perform should be included.
Clauses allowing the supplier to terminate a contract of indeterminate length without notice will usually be considered to be unfair. In Falkirk Sunbeds, Bulletin 1 Case No 6, the term provided that management could refuse entry without providing reasons. This term was found to be void. But in American Golf, Bulletin 5 page 18, a term allowing a consumer to be suspended or expelled from the golf club for acting illegally or bringing the club into disrepute was held be acceptable.
Terms which allow the supplier to retain a deposit where the consumer cancels the contract will normally be unfair. This provision effectively outlaws the retention of deposits or the use of penalty clauses in consumer contracts.
In JK Lynch Construction Ltd, Bulletin 15 Case No 9, a term which provided for a high rate of interest to be paid in the event of a failure by the consumer to perform his part of the contract was held to be unfair.
Clauses can be drafted to enable compensation to be paid in the event of the contract being terminated. Where the contract stipulates that compensation is payable the compensation must be reasonable and apply to both parties. Compensation sums must only reflect the loss otherwise they will act as a penalty on the defaulter.
Terms which allow the supplier to unilaterally terminate the contract at his discretion will usually be unfair. Termination clauses, if insisted upon, must be balanced and give equivalence to the consumer.
A contract term which provides for a fixed term contract to be automatically extended “when the deadline fixed for the consumer to express his desire not to extend the contract is unreasonably early” may be regarded as unfair.
This inelegant provision reduces the opportunity to extend the length of a contract without the consumer’s knowledge. In Autonet 2000, Ltd Bulletin 17 Case No 4, a car alarm agreement term was struck down as being unclear and for providing that the fixed term contract was automatically extended unless the consumer specifically requested that it be terminated.
It may be possible to draft a clause allowing the contract to be continued beyond its natural life if the term is equivalent and allows both parties the same right. Otherwise unilateral terms such as this appear to be unbalanced in favour of the supplier and should be avoided.
Contracts which incorporate terms contained in other documents or which cannot be consulted by the consumer are likely to be unfair. This provision has an obvious impact on contracts which attempt to incorporate notices, standard terms and conditions, regulations, codes of practice, industry standards and the like.
The OFT do recognise that some documents cannot be readily incorporated into contracts. In Travel 2 Ltd, bulletin 24 Case No 42, a reference to an International Air Convention was allowed on the understanding that copies of the relevant Convention would be made available to the consumer if requested.
Contracts should ideally have all its terms contained within the body of the document. If a contract refers to other documents, those documents should be given to the consumer or made available to him.
Terms which allow the supplier to unilaterally vary the contract without a valid reason will normally be unfair. The OFT describe these terms as general variation clauses.
In Vodaphone Ltd, Bulletin 18 Case No 24, the company sought to rely upon terms which allowed the contract to be varied at the supplier’s instance. The clause was amended and the supplier’s right to vary was limited to extraneous factors outwith his control such as changing regulatory requirements. The supplier also bound himself to inform the consumer of any changes.
General variation clauses can be drafted in such a way as to be fair. An acceptable variation clause is likely to be one which is limited in its scope and bilateral. A contract which allows for a variation in its terms should generally provide for a notice period and make provision for the consumer to resile.
Terms which allow the supplier to make changes to the product supplied without the consumer’s agreement may be void by reason of unfairness. Minor and reasonable changes will normally be fair. In Page & Moy Ltd Bulletin 20 Case No 17 a booking condition in a holiday contract which stated that the supplier was not responsible for any change in the destination airport had to be amended to provide that the supplier would provide free transport if the destination airport was altered.
Any unilateral change in the contract price will, in the absence of good reason, be unfair. Where a supplier insists upon such a clause he can consider inserting a provision allowing the consumer to cancel the contract and obtain reasonable compensation. Contracts for goods and services which are subject to price volatility such as fuel can be framed to acknowledge this but must normally allow the consumer to withdraw from the contract at short notice upon intimation of the price rise.
Terms allowing the Supplier to interpret the meaning of the Contract
Terms which allow the supplier the right to unilaterally interpret the contract are likely to be unfair.
In Initial Electronic Security Systems Ltd, Bulletin 17 Case No 13, a term allowing the supplier complete discretion on what action to take in the event of him receiving the alarm signal was held to be unfair. The revised term allowed the supplier to take such action as was reasonably necessary.
Terms which limit the supplier’s obligation to respect representations made by his employees or agents or which make any verbal commitments made by the supplier subject to written formality may be unfair.
Entire agreement terms are quite common in consumer contracts and usually attempt to exclude verbal representations made by the supplier’s salesmen. A typical term would read “this agreement comprises the entire contract between the parties.”
In Bulletin 14 Case No 1, the OFT said that virtually all entire agreement clauses are potentially unfair. But, entire agreement terms have been regarded as fair by the OFT where they state that “it is the suppliers intention that this agreement consists the whole agreement between the parties.” This distinction is difficult to understand and I would submit that such a term would be ineffective in the face of evidence of the supplier making extra-contractual assurances to the consumer which he failed to adhere to. I would advise that entire agreement clauses of this nature should be avoided.
Terms which impose formality barriers in the way of varying the contract will also be considered as unfair. Typically, these terms assert that the contract can only be varied with the written consent of the supplier or a director or that some other formality be gone through. This barrier to variation effectively prevents the consumer from seeking even minor changes to a contract. As a rule such terms are regarded by the OFT as unfair.
Terms which provide that the supplier may default but the consumer remains bound by the contract may be unfair. Reported examples are limited perhaps because such a term is so patently unfair that even the most zealous of drafters balk at its inclusion. But examples do exist. In Maples Stores plc Bulletin 3 page 77, a term held that failure by the supplier to make delivery of the goods did not entitle the consumer to repudiate. Unsurprisingly, this term was held to be unfair.
It is difficult to envisage any term binding the consumer to the contract but not the supplier surviving the fairness test.
Terms which allow the supplier to assign the contract without the consent of the consumer may be unfair. Contracts which allow both parties to assign are likely to be fair as it balances the rights of each party.
Terms which exclude or restrict a consumer’s legal rights are invariably unfair.
Terms commonly falling within this category include those limiting statutory rights, common law remedies, imposing arbitration upon the consumer or limiting jurisdiction or choice of law.
The limitation of jurisdiction or choice of law remains the single most common attempt to curtail consumer rights. Jurisdiction or choice of law clauses should be avoided altogether as they are generally worthless.
The list of potentially unfair terms in Schedule 2 is non-exclusive. Categorisation is difficult but where a term does not fall within Schedule 2 then the test to be applied is one of fairness and good faith.
The following is a set of recent examples of uncategorised terms which the OFT have considered to be unfair.
In RDC, Bulletin 20 Case No 19, the seller reserved the right to withhold or cancel delivery of the goods where the consumer was in breach of contract. This term was unbalanced in favour of the supplier, the consumer not having a reciprocal right. In Lastminute.com, Bulletin 20 Case No 12, the responsibility for goods lost or damaged in transit was transferred to the consumer. This too was unfair. A holiday booking contract in Page & Moy Ltd, Bulletin 20 Case No 17, which contained a provision which held that any amendments to the contract within six weeks of the booking would be treated as a cancellation and charges applied. This was considered was considered to be unbalanced and contrary to good faith. The term also acts as a penalty clause.
The test of good faith is often a matter of fine judgement. In Law Pack Publishing, Bulletin 20 Case No 18, a standard letting agreement provided that the landlord was entitled to recovery of the property if any part of the rent was unpaid after 10 days. The OFT agreed that if the term was amended to allow a 21 day period then it would be fair.
The regulations apply to the sale and lease of heritage to consumers where the supplier is a business.
In Khatum v London Borough of Newham. [2003] EWHC 2326 (Admin) the High Court held that the regulations apply to local authorities even where they are supplying tenancies under a statutory duty.
The OFT have issued a guide to Landlords and letting agents giving guidance on the regulations and their effect on residential leases.
The regulations apply to new build missives which are prepared by the builder and are in a pre-printed, non-negotiable form.
The regulations do not apply to the sale of heritage between one consumer and another.
The regulations instil a certain amount of discipline into contractual draftsmanship. Adherence to the regulations will result in a well crafted contract which is easily digested by the consumer. The drafters challenge is to ensure the contract protects their client’s interests and remains fair to the consumer and thus free from challenge.
The following checklist should assist drafters in ensuring compliance with the regulations: -
1. Is the contract legible, well laid out and are the important terms highlighted?
2. Is the term short, to the point, drafted in plain English and jargon free?
3. Do you need the term in the first place? If the term merely states the law then the answer is no. If the term dilutes the consumers pre-existing rights then it should be avoided.
4. Is the term balanced and fair?
5. Does the term give the supplier enhanced rights which statute or the common law would not imply? If so is this enhancement counterbalanced by a corresponding right in favour of the consumer?
6. If the contract incorporates other documents are they readily available to the consumer?
John Carruthers Advocate, 6th August 2004.
Current Submissions04.07.08 Getting a Get in Scotland - 2This follow-up to the article published in March 2006 explains how current Scots divorce law affects Jewish clients and how solicitors can give appropriate advice 12.06.08 No place for secrecyFuller version of the Opinion article, Journal, June 2008: critique of the system for appointment as Queen’s Counsel in Scotland 11.03.08 One Scotland, many cultures?Despite the protections of the Human Rights Act, the position of travelling people in Scotland appears to have worsened in recent years - why? 26.02.08 Bank charges and the Unfair Terms RegulationsThe significance of the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations in the context of the current litigation over bank charges 21.02.08 CGT: Don't lose out on 6 April 2008Couples should consider asset transfers before then to preserve indexation relief 14.12.07 Common sense prevailsThe options open, and the issues that arise, now that the proposed planning gain supplement is not to be introduced 07.12.07 Discounting justiceAuthor contends that sentencing discounts and other developments have created an imbalance in the justice system 10.10.07 Advocacy in mediationAn overview of the mediation process and the opportunities for solicitors and clients 06.09.07 TUPE: stay your handA Court of Session ruling on a law firm redundancy marks a fundamental change in TUPE 24.07.07 EAT breaks ground with TUPE insolvency rulingRuling on when insolvency proceedings begin leaves successor employer liable 06.07.07 Confidentiality clauses - beware!The Information Commissioner's decision in the VisitScotland case requires very careful drafting of confidentiality provisions in public sector contracts if they are to work 06.07.07 The power of marks: Frankie goes after Hollys nameHow failure to address issues of ownership of the band's name stored up trouble for Frankie Goes to Hollywood 14.05.07 Court plans with little appealThe fuller version of the Opinion article in the Journal for May 2007 14.05.07 Winning waysThe fuller version of the article in the Journal for May 2007 08.02.07 Routes to qualification: the Italian pictureAn Italian lawyer with an interest in training in different jurisdictions reports on current developments in the Italian legal system 09.01.07 Contractual handcuffs: enhanced redundancy rightsThe Court of Appeal decision in Keeley v FOSROC International Ltd requires employers to exercise caution when referring to redundancy rights in staff handbooks 27.12.06 The Isle of ManAn summary of the current legal and tax regime for individuals and companies based on the island (a longer version of the briefing in the November 2006 issue) 15.11.06 Costume Wars: copyright storm over the troopersA row over "Star Wars" costumes illustrates the need to protect all intellectual property rights in written agreements 13.10.06 Survival of the fittest? A replyReply to article on selection for Diploma and traineeship places by Michael Torrance in the September 2006 Journal 13.10.06 TUPE passes the buckFar from providing clarity, the new regulations will need litigation to decide the effect of the insolvency provisions (longer version of October 2006 briefing article) 17.08.06 For supplement read tax - an updateAuthors update their previous Journal article on the proposed planning gain supplement 17.08.06 Technology and the Scottish courtsAn update on the use of technology in the Scottish courts, based on the author's experience of a recent patent case 26.07.06 A lack of trustForthcoming in August issue, put online because of its urgency, the article outlines the final form of the trust tax changes in this year's Finance Act 17.07.06 Ireland 4, Italy 0The ECJ decision in the Irish-Italian dispute in the Parmalat companies liquidation proceedings provides important guidance on jurisdiction 05.04.06 Legal science or law-lite? A responseThis reply to Professor Gretton argues that changes in Scots law teaching are a necessary response to changes in universities, the wider community and the law itself 03.04.06 Opening a binding global route for personal dataIn a significant move the Information Commissioner has allowed a company to transfer employees' personal data outwith the EU under binding internal rules 02.04.06 Mentally disordered offendersOverview of the options available to the courts when dealing with offenders who have or may have a mental disorder, following recent legislative reforms 30.03.06 Bias and mental health tribunals: a replyReply to criticisms of the new tribunals, arguing that the composition of the tribunals is not inherently unfair and only research can assess their performance 17.01.06 Legal aid in children's hearing referralsThis paper delivered at the legal aid conference, argues that the interests of justice require better remuneration for solicitors appearing in children's hearing cases 09.12.05 Holes in Scotland's corporate killing proposalsGaps in the expert working group's proposals could make them unworkable and bad for business 10.08.05 Prosecuting bigotry offencesTwo appeal decisions have exposed limitations in the statutory offences directed at racial abuse 08.07.05 Commissioner: Public Authorities must do moreInformation Commissioner's first appeal decision highlights areas for improvement 14.04.05 New identity for criminal justice bodyScottish Association for the Study of Offending launches by removing "Delinquency" from title 14.04.05 Information and Consultation RegulationsBriefing on the regulations in force from 6 April 2005, covering businesses with more than the prescribed number of employees 13.04.05 Retailers seek effective court action on crimeScottish Retail Consortium proposes more effective intervention following 3rd Retail Crime Survey 11.04.05 Appropriate dispute resolutionThis paper, given to the Four Jurisdictions Conference in Nice this year, discusses how family law can make a difference for the better by careful choice of the most suitable method of resolution 09.03.05 ASBOs and young peopleWhat to look for when acting for a young person facing an antisocial behaviour order application 21.02.05 Sell or transfer?Longer version of briefing published in February 2005 issue, page 44 08.02.05 Promoting competitiveness or competition?Discussion of EU rules on state aids with particular reference to Highlands and Islands ferries 10.11.04 Guarding the inner sanctumHow to minimise the risk of breaches of internet security 10.11.04 The Clinical Trials Directive - a summaryWhat the EU Clinical Trials Directive means for trials of medicinal products 13.10.04 Sheriff Court Rules Council consultation paperConsultation on proposals for further extension of the use of information technology in civil cases in the sheriff court (response date: 15 November 2004) 13.10.04 Ignorantia juris: it's all Greek to meSecond annual APEX lecture given by the President of the Law Society of Scotland, on the rule of law and its essential components 13.10.04 Virtual firms: transactional learning on the webHow today's Diploma students are introduced to legal transactions in a virtual environment 13.10.04 Drafting consumer contractsGuidance on drafting consumer contracts and ensuring compliance with the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999 |