CONSUMER LAW

Consumer Law

Consumer Law

Protect Consumers from Unfair Contracts

The unfair terms, in Consumer Contract Regulations 1999 aim, to protect consumers from contracts that are unfair. These contractual regulations are formulated as a part of ensuring a smooth and lawful process. The Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations' implement Council Directive 93/13 on Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts. The effect of the Regulations is to create a regime, which is quite distinct, where a clause is disputed. It will be necessary to determine its validity both against the Act and the Regulations. The coverage of the two enactments differs in the main, the Act deals with exclusion clauses in both consumer and business contracts whereas the Regulations apply solely to terms in contracts with consumers.

The Regulations refer to a “consumer” as one “acting for purposes”, which are outside his trade, business or profession. This wording suggests that a person can only be a consumer if he has a trade, business or profession outside which he can act. The bizarre conclusion, to which this literal reading would lead, that at the very least those with no occupation at all are outside the Regulations, cannot seriously be expected to be maintained. It is, therefore, much more likely that the definition will be read is "outside such business, if any, as he might have".

Schedule of Unfair Terms

A schedule to the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contract Regulations 1999 gives guidelines to determine what is reasonable for protecting consumers. Account must be taken of the relative bargaining strength of the parties, whether the buyer is given any inducement such as a price reduction, whether the buyer should have known of the exemption clause, whether compliance with any condition such as a time-limit for complaints was reasonable, and whether the goods were made to the buyer's separate order.

Fairness Test and Baybur v. Eccle Riggs Country Park Ltd

In Baybur v. Eccle Riggs Country Park Ltd', it was said that the fairness test could not be applied to terms which were implied by law. Judge Pelling said it was difficult to see how a term, which was implied in order to make a contract work and make good a gap in the contract could ever be shown to be unfair. He added that terms were implied at common law in order to give effect to the, obvious common, but unspoken intention of both parties. Again, it was difficult to see how such a term could ever be unfair. He further noted that none of the indicative list of unfair terms could be regarded as implied terms (Tarr, 2002, Pp. 70).

Act and Regulations

The Act can apply to negotiated contracts, whereas the Regulations apply only to consumer contracts, which have not been individually negotiated. The Act covers exclusion clauses contained in notices, but on the contrary, the Regulations do not contain exclusion clauses. Finally, unlike the Act, the Regulations are not limited to exclusion or limitation clauses. The Regulations apply to any unfair term in a contract concluded between a seller ...