7. Exemption Clauses and Unfair Terms

This chapter assesses exemption clauses and unfair terms. Exemption clauses are terms that either exclude or limit the liability of a party. The law relating to the use of such clauses is a mixture of rules found in both the common law and legislation; the common law rules apply to all contracts. In addition, the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977 applies to the use of exemption clauses in contracts between two businesses. For consumers, the Consumer Rights Act 2015 provides wider protection from unfair terms including exemption clauses. The practical context of exemption clauses is simple. One party will be in breach and so the other will seek compensation for the loss caused by the breach. The party in breach will then defend the action by relying on an exemption clause. The dispute is then about whether or not the clause can be relied upon. The circumstances in which terms might be assessed for being ‘unfair’ can be wider than this. Typically, a business will take action against a consumer following the consumer’s failure to perform an obligation, which will then prompt the consumer to challenge the obligation as based on an unfair term.

Badanie przez sąd z urzędu skuteczności powołania się na właściwość miejsca płatności weksla — uwagi na marginesie uchwały Sądu Najwyższego z dnia 19 października 2017, III CZP 42/17

EX OFFICIO EXAMINATION THE EFFECTIVENESS OF INVOKING THE JURISDICTION OF THE COURT ARISING FROM THE PLACE OF PAYMENT OF A PROMISSORY NOTE — COMMENTS ON THE MARGIN OF THE SUPREME COUTR’S RESOLUTION DATED 19 OCTOBER 2017, III CZP 42/17The article is about the relation between the obligation of ex officio examination of unfair terms in consumer contracts, including determining the jurisdiction of the court, and the nature of promissory law. The author will consider whether the domicile clause included in the promissory note issued by the consumer or defined in the promissory note agreement may constitute an unfair term in a consumer contract. It will be necessary to assess the character of promisory notes and terms contained. The consequence of the unilateral nature of issuing a promissory note is a denial of the right to examine the abusiveness of the terms contained in the fully completed promissory note. The possibility of examining the unfair character of the domicile clause exists, however, in the case of a blank promissory note, since it may not concern the promissory note itself, but the terms of the promissory note agreement.

Are Australian gift cards refundable after their expiry?

Gift cards are valid for a limited period of time and consumers cannot get refunds for any unused and expired monetary credit balance. Despite the recent federal and NSW gift card reforms, the reforms do not mandate gift cards to be refundable. By comparison, section 24 of the Australian Consumer Law may render the non-refundable term unfair and the gift card contracts would continue to apply without this unfair term. The result is that all Australian consumers should be able to redeem gift cards before expiry and get refunds for the remaining credit in the gift cards after expiry. This positive result would balance the rights of consumers and the legitimate interests of gift card providers to boost gift card business.

UNFAIR TERMS IN CONSUMER CONTRACTS

The article deals with the concepts and signs of unfair terms in contracts with the participation of consumers. National legislation contains a warning that the seller (performer, manufacturer) has no right to offer in the contract and include unfair terms. In the European Union, such relationships are governed by Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 On Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts,which is horizontal in scope and applies to contracts to which the consumer and the seller/supplier are parties. The Directive states that an unfair term is recognized as a condition of a contract that was not individually negotiated, if, for breach of the requirement of good faith, it causes significant discrepancies in the rights and obligations of the parties arising from the contract, to the detriment of the consumer. Unlike national legislation, the Directive contains an exhaustive list of unfair terms. For example,conditions having a purpose or intention: a) to exclude or limit the legal liability of the seller or supplier in the event of death or injury to the consumer because of the activity or inaction of such a seller or supplier. b) to conclude an agreement that will oblige the consumer, according to which the provision of services by the seller or supplier will depend on the personal desire of the latter. c) automatically extend the contract of the specified duration, when the consumer does not show the opposite desire, if the specified deadline for the expression of the consumer’s desire is unreasonably short, etc. Such a list of conditions that may be considered unfair is inexhaustible. A study of national legislation shows that unfair terms of the contract violate the principle of good faith and lead to a significant imbalance of contractual rights and obligations and cause harm to the consumer. The presence of these conditions is the basis for their recognition as invalid, and in some cases invalidation of the contract as a whole.

La sentencia del Tribunal de Justicia de la Unión Europea de 21 de diciembre de 2016. Un giro jurisprudencial para tumbar la doctrina del Tribunal Supremo sobre la retroactividad parcial de la declaración de abusividad de las cláusulas suelo

El Tribunal Supremo en sentencias de Pleno núm. 241/2013 de 9 de mayo de 2013 y núm. 139/2015 de 25 de marzo del 2015 declaró nulas por abusivas las cláusulas suelo incluidas en unos contratos de préstamo hipotecario suscritos con consumidores, si bien limitó el derecho del consumidor a la restitución de las cantidades pagadas en virtud de la cláusula abusiva a partir de su Sentencia de 9 de mayo de 2013. El Tribunal de Justicia de la Unión Europea, en su reciente sentencia de 21 de diciembre de 2016 (asuntos acumulados C154/15 y C307/15), ha declarado que la doctrina del Tribunal Supremo que limita el efecto retroactivo de la declaración de nulidad por abusividad de las cláusulas suelo incluidas en contratos suscritos por consumidores, es contraria a la Directiva 93/13/CEE de 5 de abril. Esta sentencia del TJUE supone un giro jurisprudencial de su doctrina sobre los efectos de la declaración de abusividad al amparo del artículo 6 de la Directiva 93/13/CEE, ya que hasta la fecha no había interpretado el concepto de «no vinculación» como una restitutio in integrum, esto es, con una eficacia ex tunc. Hasta el dictado de esta sentencia, el TJUE venía declarando que la sanción de nulidad contenida en una normativa nacional que determinaba el cese del uso de dichas cláusulas cumplía con las exigencias del artículo 6, correspondiendo a cada Estado, «en las condiciones estipuladas por sus derechos nacionales», extraer las consecuencias de la comprobación de dicho carácter abusivo, ya que la función de la Directiva no era la de perseguir la armonización de las sanciones aplicables en el supuesto de la declaración del carácter abusivo de una cláusula, sino la existencia de medios adecuados y eficaces para el cese en el uso de las mismas en los contratos celebrados con consumidores. En esta sentencia el TJUE da una nueva interpretación al artículo 6 de la Directiva 93/13/CEE para fundamentar la revocación de las sentencias del Tribunal Supremo de 9 de mayo de 2013 y 25 de marzo de 2015, en cuanto a su doctrina sobre la limitación del efecto retroactivo de la declaración de nulidad, doctrina que, como argumentamos en este artículo, no se oponía a esta Directiva comunitaria ni a la jurisprudencia del Tribunal de Justicia de la Unión Europea.The Spanish Supreme court declared in his rule n.º 241/2013 9th of May and n.º 139/2015 25th of March, that the (floor clauses) contained in a contract between a consumer and a seller or supplier were unfair but in his rule of 2015 limited the effects of that declaration, by allowing the right to repayment of the amounts improperly paid by the consumer on the basis of the unfair term to arise only from the date of the decision of that court confirming that the term in question was unfair, that is 9th of May 2013. The European Court of Justice in his judgment of 21st December 2016 has declared that the ruling of the Spanish Supreme Court placing a temporal limitation on the effects of the invalidity of ‘floor clauses’ included in contracts signed by a consumer mortgage loan contracts in Spain is incompatible with Article 6.1 of Directive 93/13. The European Court of Justice declares in this rule that the situation of unfairness must have the effect of restoring the consumer to the situation that consumer(s) would have been in if that term had not existed. The ECJ said: «Consequently, the finding that ‘floor clauses’ are unfair must allow the restitution of advantages wrongly obtained by the seller or supplier to the consumer’s detriment.»

The Unfair Contract Term Provisions: What's Transparency Got to do with it?

Provisions in the Australian Consumer Law allow a court to declare an ‘unfair’ term in a ‘consumer contract’ or a ‘small business contract’ void. When determining whether a term is unfair, a court must consider the extent to which it is transparent. Transparency is important since it is one of only two factors that a court must consider when making this determination. This article will examine whether transparency is logically relevant to the legislative test for whether a term is unfair. It will argue that it is of limited relevance and hence should not be a mandatory consideration for determining unfairness. It will then consider several alternatives to making transparency a mandatory consideration.

EVOLUTION OR REVOLUTION? UNFAIR TERMS IN CONSUMER CONTRACTS

DIRECTORGeneral of Fair Trading v. First National Bank plc [2001] 1 UKHL 52, [2001] 3 W.L.R. 1297 marks the beginning of an evolution in the common law of contract. The House of Lords considered for the first time whether a contractual term was an unfair term under the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1994, S.I. 1994/3159 (which implemented Council Directive (EEC) 93/13, now implemented by the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999, S.I. 1999/2083). The case arose when the Director General sought injunctive relief, pursuant to regulation 8(2), to restrain the use of a contractual term.