• Join over 1.2 million students every month
  • Accelerate your learning by 29%
  • Unlimited access from just £6.99 per month

Explain what is meant by an unfair term in a contract and describe and evaluate the effect(s) thereon of the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999

Extracts from this document...


Explain what is meant by an unfair term in a contract and describe and evaluate the effect(s) thereon of the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999. After the Treaty of Maastricht, the European Community made a directive on Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts 1993. This instructed member states to pass domestic legislation to provide consumer protection. As a result, the UK Government made the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1994 which have now been replaced by the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999. The main aim of the new regulations is for UK Law to be drafted more closely to the wording of the European Legislation, to help prevent discrepancies between the two. The principle change from the 1994 regulations and the 1999 regulations are simply that more institutions are now able to enforce the legislation, beyond the Director-General of Fair Trading. An unfair term is defined in Regulation 5(1) of the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999 as; ' A contractual term which has not been individually negotiated shall be regarded as unfair if, contrary to the requirement of good faith, it causes a significant imbalance in the parties rights and obligations arising under the contract, to the detriment of the consumer' 1 In addition to this Reg 6 of the same Regulations states that, ' .....the fairness of a contractual term shall be assessed, taking into account the nature of the goods or services for which the contract was concluded and by referring, at the time of conclusion of the contract and to all the other ...read more.


Where judgment is given for outstanding principal payable under a loan agreement and interest accrued up to the date of judgment, those claims (he accepted) are merged in the judgment. That is a conventional application of the principle of res judicata. But no claim for future interest has been the subject of adjudication by the court and such a claim cannot be barred as res judicata. The borrower's covenant to pay interest on any part of the principal loan outstanding thus survives such a judgment, and Ex p Fewings (1883) 25 Ch D 338 was wrong to lay down any contrary principle. Lord Goodhart adopted the observation of Templeman LJ in Ealing LBC v El Isaac9 Where a term is held to be unfair, the consequences is that it 'shall not be binding on the consumer' but the 'contract shall continue to bind the parties of it is capable of continuing in existence without the unfair term' Regulation 7 further states that a seller or supplier shall ensure that any written term of a contract is expressed in plain intelligible language and if there is any doubt about the meaning of a written term, the interpretation most favourable to the consumer shall succeed. The effect of a term being found to be unfair in accordance to the 1999 Regulations in set out in Reg 8(1) that, 'unfair terms in a contract are not binding on the consumer'10, thus it is the individual term that is avoidable not the contract as a whole. ...read more.


the contracting parties and took a broad approach to the issue of fairness.15 The second further change was, the Director General and the statutory qualifying bodies were given power by Regulation 13 to require disclosure of documents and information where this is necessary for enforcement purposes. It is expected that this will significantly improve the monitoring of compliance with undertakings given to drop or amend contract terms. In conclusion I would say that the effect of the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999 on whether a term is to be deemed fair or unfair prevents an injustice on consumers who may not have strong bargaining power against larger corporations. The regulations have also given more qualifying bodies the right to take action against unfair contracts which will most likely help decrease the level of unfair terms in future contracts and greater equality for consumers. An advantage of the 1999 regulations is that they take into account the previous 1977 and 1994 regulations which mean that there is greater protection for consumers from unfair terms. The fact that the regulations are confined in their scope to consumer contract means that it is kept out of the commercial sphere where the need for certainty is greatest. So the uncertainty which the regulations will initially create is not the grave cause for concern which it would be if it applied to international contracts for the sale of goods.16 Overall the 1999 Regulations have had a significant effect on unfair terms, which will must likely result in a decrease of unfair terms being used in contracts. ...read more.

The above preview is unformatted text

This student written piece of work is one of many that can be found in our AS and A Level Law of Contract section.

Found what you're looking for?

  • Start learning 29% faster today
  • 150,000+ documents available
  • Just £6.99 a month

Not the one? Search for your essay title...
  • Join over 1.2 million students every month
  • Accelerate your learning by 29%
  • Unlimited access from just £6.99 per month

See related essaysSee related essays

Related AS and A Level Law of Contract essays

  1. Marked by a teacher

    "The requirement of consideration is an unnecessary complication in the formation of contracts."

    4 star(s)

    v Kenyon and Roscorla v Thomas, where promises were made after the initial contract had been formed and performed similarly, a promise to increase wages retrospectively was held to be supported by a consideration in the past and again, this lacks reciprocity and so, such a contract will be unenforceable

  2. Marked by a teacher

    Contract Law - Offer And Acceptance

    3 star(s)

    contract the terms of another contract between the parties, or a draft agreement between them23 - contract between one of them and a third party Brogden v MRC (1877) B supplied coal to MRC for many years without an agreement.

  1. Marked by a teacher

    In this Assignment I am going to describe the requirements of a valid contract ...

    3 star(s)

    This means that both parties to the contract must provide consideration. It can be executed or executor. Intention When a person is considering entering a contract, he must intend to be bound by it. This ensures that people who enter a contract, but never intend to be legally bound by them are not trapped in a contract arrangement.

  2. Four ways in which a contract may be discharged.

    4. DISCHARGE BY BREACH. Actual breach: one party fails to perform a contractual obligation. Anticipatory breach: one party shows an intention not to perform. Where there is an anticipatory breach the innocent party can accept the breach and immediately sue for breach of contract or they may refuse to accept it and wait until the due date of performance.

  1. Void and voidable Contracts.

    Therefore the contract of the sale of the sofa is valid. 2. In this situation Sid, the owner of Scrumptious Sofas, has misinformed Karen when telling her the dimensions of the sofa. It must be noted though that he did not do this knowingly.

  2. Free essay

    Outline how consumers are protected in contracts for the sale of goods, identifying relevant ...

    If a sample is used to represent the quality of the product offered, then it must also be of the same quality, match the description and may not be misrepresented in any way. If these conditions are not met they are considered as a breach of contract and consumers would be entitled to request a replacement, a repair or compensation.


    The purchaser ignored this advice and bought the boat. When it proved to be unseaworthy, he sued. 3. THE RELATIVE IMPORTANCE OF CONTRACTUAL TERMS. This material in this section is designed for self-study. When you have answered a question yourself turn to the suggested answer.

  2. Aspects of Contract and Business Law Case Studies

    price and therefore Ben had a right to reject the price offered. There was no contract made between the two parties because Ben didn?t accept the bid offer and therefore Tracy cannot take Ben to court because there wasn?t a binding contract formed between the two parties.

  • Over 160,000 pieces
    of student written work
  • Annotated by
    experienced teachers
  • Ideas and feedback to
    improve your own work