The Law Commission is consulting on reforming the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999. Regulation 6(2) states assessing fairness of a term does not apply to the price if it is in plain intelligible language. The Law Commission believes the Supreme Court judgment in Office of Fair Trading v. Abbey National and later cases have resulted in different interpretations and the law in the area has become uncertain. The Law Commission proposes that a price term that does not relate to the price amount should not be assessed for fairness if it is “transparent and prominent”. If it is not hidden in small print and can be taken into account by the consumer in making a decision, then it forms part of the essential bargain of the price. The Law Commission also proposes to clarify what price terms are included in the grey list of terms that will always be subject to fairness assessment, such as price escalation clauses, early termination charges and default charges. The Law Commission asks for comments by 25 October. (Source: Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts: a New Approach?)
Register Now As you are not an existing subscriber please register for your free daily legal newsfeed service.Register
If you have any questions about the service please contact firstname.lastname@example.org or call Lexology Customer Services on +44 20 7234 0606.
Law Commission consults on unfair terms
If you are interested in submitting an article to Lexology, please contact Andrew Teague at email@example.com.
"Lexology is one of the few newsfeeds that I do actually look over as and when it comes in - the information is current; has good descriptive headings so I can see quickly what the articles relate to...
"Lexology is one of the few newsfeeds that I do actually look over as and when it comes in - the information is current; has good descriptive headings so I can see quickly what the articles relate to and is not too long."
Senior Legal Counsel, Bankwest Business
Bank of Western Australia Ltd