ACL: Defects, Warranties and Unfair Contracts Steven Brown Page 1 Australian Consumer Law: Defects, Warranties and Unfair Contracts Paper written by Steven Brown, Etienne Lawyers, B.Ec, LL.B, (Sydney), M. App. Fin (Macquarie), FAICD, Accredited Business Law Specialist, AIMM, FPIAA. BASIL CLE Conference on Saturday 24 March 2012 at the Sebel Hotel, Parramatta Introduction This paper is about recent changes to Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth) (“TPA”), by the Competition and Consumer Act 2010 (Cth) and the introduction of the Australian Consumer Law (the “ACL”) and my comments on the likely impact they will have on consumer transactions in Australia. Recent Changes The changes we will look at are the amendments to Act made by the Trade Practices Amendment (Australian Consumer Law) Act 2010 (“ACL. Defects and Warranty Changes under the Competition and Consumer Act 2010 The New Consumer Laws: 1. What are the differences between Then and Now? 2. contractual warranties cf statutory guarantee 3. Who is a consumer? Has the Law changed? 4. Guarantees and Auctions. One of the highest profile changes introduced by the ACL is the new system of statutory guarantees which replace the conditions and warranties previously implied into consumer contracts by the Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth) (TPA) and various state laws.
43
Embed
Australian Consumer Law: defects, warranties and unfair contracts basil 120324
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
ACL: Defects, Warranties and Unfair Contracts Steven Brown Page 1
Australian Consumer Law: Defects, Warranties and Unfair Contracts
Paper written by Steven Brown, Etienne Lawyers, B.Ec, LL.B, (Sydney), M. App. Fin (Macquarie), FAICD, Accredited Business Law Specialist, AIMM, FPIAA.
BASIL CLE Conference on Saturday 24 March 2012 at the Sebel Hotel, Parramatta
Introduction
This paper is about recent changes to Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth) (“TPA”), by the Competition and Consumer Act 2010 (Cth) and the introduction of the Australian Consumer Law (the “ACL”) and my comments on the likely impact they will have on consumer transactions in Australia.
Recent Changes
The changes we will look at are the amendments to Act made by the Trade Practices
2010)], a purchaser wished to return a car some six years after purchase because
the vehicle’s transmission had started to malfunction. Although the vehicle was six
years old, it had only travelled 34,000 kilometres. The tribunal accepted expert
evidence that a failure of transmission after so few kilometres could not be
considered as anything other than premature failure and found that the vehicle had
suffered a major failure of the guarantee of acceptable quality. The Tribunal found
that the consumer was entitled to return the vehicle, even though it was six years old.
Original Packaging Restriction – No Longer s 259(7) ACL
Consumers were in the past often thwarted in relying upon TPA remedies by being
contractually required to produce the original packaging for a consumer good sought
to be returned. Section 259(7) no expressly prohibits a retailer or manufacturer from
honouring the statutory warranties just because goods are not returned in their
original packaging.
Special case – lemons
The reviews of the consumer protection laws that preceded the ACL considered
whether a specific ‘lemon law’ was required; either for motor vehicles specifically, or
for consumer products in general.[See Consumer rights: Statutory implied conditions
and warranties Issues paper, CCAAC, July 2009, chapter 6] While there are varying
definitions of a “lemon”, the CCAAC defined lemons as products that “simply will not
function as intended, for reasons that are beyond the expertise of a reasonable
repairer to remedy”.[See CCAAC Report, page 92] In simple terms, it is a product
that, despite repeated repairs, continues to break down.
The CCAAC acknowledged that lemons can cause consumers considerable
inconvenience. However, it also found that the incidence of lemons, either in motor
vehicles or in consumer products generally, was not high enough to warrant specific
legislation. The CCAAC also thought the new consumer guarantees may address
some of the difficulties facing consumers in obtaining a remedy under the
ACL: Defects, Warranties and Unfair Contracts Steven Brown Page 15
TPA. Consequently, the CCAAC recommended against a specific lemon law.[See
CCACC Report, page 99]
Whether the new consumer guarantees do in fact address issues relating to ‘lemon’
products remains to be seen. It is interesting to note that the ACCC does not appear
to address the question at all in its guides.
It seems clear that a product that breaks down repeatedly will breach the guarantees
of acceptable quality and, possibly, fitness for purpose. The remedy most
consumers will then seek will be a refund or a new product, not more repairs. To
require this, the relevant failure must be ‘major’.
Under s 260(a), a failure is major if the reasonable consumer, fully acquainted with
the nature of “the failure”, would not have purchased the product. It is not clear that
this language is well adapted to allow a series of failures to be taken into account.
The alternative argument is that a product that continually fails is not “fit for purpose”
under s 260(c) or (d). If several previous repairs have failed to make a product
reliable, a consumer may then be able to argue that it has been shown that the
problem cannot easily, and within a reasonable time, be remedied and that the
definition of major failure in s 260(c) or (d) has become satisfied, entitling them to
require a refund or replacement. Again, however, this right seems less than clear.
Summary
ACL: Defects, Warranties and Unfair Contracts Steven Brown Page 16
Manufacturers Warranties
The Trade Practices Act did not regulate the content or form of manufacturers’
warranties. The ACL, however, sets out a range of requirements for such warranties,
including a requirement to include a statement informing consumers of their rights
under statutory consumer guarantees.
These requirements come into effect on 1 January 2012. From this date, failure to
comply with the new laws may result in penalties ranging from $10,000 per offence
for individuals to $50,000 per offence for corporations. Every product a manufacturer
sells without a compliant warranty statement will be a separate offence (that is, there
is a separate offence for every single item sold).
To comply with the ACL, from 1 January, 2012 all manufacturers’ warranty
statements must:
The law relating to Warranties against defects in the ACL at Section 102. This
relevantly provides that a person must not give a document to a consumer that
evidences a warranty against defects unless it complies with the requirements
prescribed in the Regulations.
ACL: Defects, Warranties and Unfair Contracts Steven Brown Page 17
These requirements are contained in the Competition and Consumer (Australian
Consumer Law) Amendment Regulations 2010, and while these are not yet in force,
they are due to come into force on 1 January 2012. Regulation 90 of this provides
that a Warranty against defects must:
1. Be transparent
2. It must concisely state; - What the person who gives the Warranty must do so that the Warranty
may be honoured, and. - What the Consumer must do to entitle the Consumer to claim the
Warranty
3. It must contain the comment “Our goods come with guarantees that cannot be excluded under the Australian Consumer Law. You are entitled to a replacement or refund for a major failure and for compensation for any other loss or damage. You are also entitled to have the goods repaired or replaced if the goods fail to be of acceptable quality and the failure does not amount to a major failure.”
4. Prominently state the following information about the person who gives the warranty:
- the person’s name - Business address - Telephone number - Email address (if any)
5. State the period or periods within which a defect in the goods or services to which the Warranty relates must appear if the Consumer is to be allowed to claim the Warranty.
6. Set out the procedure for claiming the Warranty.
7. State who will bear the expense of claiming on the Warranty, and if by the person who gives the Warranty – how the consumer can claim expenses incurred in making the claim.
8. State that the benefits to the consumer given by the Warranty are in addition to other rights and remedies of the consumer under a law in relation to the goods or services to which the Warranty relates.
ACL: Defects, Warranties and Unfair Contracts Steven Brown Page 18
In the case of the first of these requirements, the term “Transparent” is defined in
Section 2 of the ACL to mean “expressed in plain language, legible and presented
clearly.”; in summary it must be in language that can be easily understood.
In the case of the third requirement, the term “major failure” is defined in Sections
260 and 268 of the ACL and this specifies a series of scenarios where goods are a
“major failure” and these are:
• If the goods would not have been acquired by a reasonable consumer who knew the extent of the failure fully;
• If the goods are different from their description of a sample of them; • If the goods are unfit for the purpose for which they were bought and cannot
be remedied to make them fit for such a purpose; or • If the goods are unsafe.
Businesses should consider all places where statements regarding a warranty
against defects are made, such as warranty cards, product packaging, instruction
manuals, point of sale materials and websites. Businesses that import products to
Australia or sell products with a significant lead time for manufacture or packaging
may need to act soon to correct statements included in product packaging to ensure
compliance.
Under the guarantee regime of the ACL, suppliers need to tread very carefully when
dealing with product faults, particularly if they wish to attempt a repair before offering
a refund. Misleading consumers as to their statutory rights is a ‘hot button’ issue for
the ACCC and with the introduction of civil penalties for contraventions of the ACL,
the ACCC has potent weapons to clamp down on suppliers who contravene the law.
The ACCC has recently taken a number of enforcement actions in this area,
including issuing an infringement notice to a major fashion retailer for representing
that there were ‘no returns’ on sale items and prosecution of a major computer store
chain for misleading in-store signage about warranty rights that ultimately led to
penalties of $203,500 being imposed.
All suppliers of consumer products should be reviewing their refund policies to
ensure that they take into account consumers’ rights under the ACL. In particular,
refund policies must not:
ACL: Defects, Warranties and Unfair Contracts Steven Brown Page 19
1. make blanket ‘no returns’ or ‘no refunds’ statements, even on sale items;
2. require a customer to take an exchange or credit note rather than a cash refund;
and
3. require customers to keep their receipt (although satisfactory proof of purchase
can be required) or return products in their original packaging.
Of course businesses do not have to accept ‘change of mind’ returns and, if they do,
they are entitled to set conditions on those returns such as a length of time or the
requirement for all labels and tags to still be attached. Often the difference between
compliant returns policies and those that breach the law are relatively minor (e.g., ‘no
returns on sale items’ is illegal whereas ‘no change of mind returns on sale items’ is
perfectly legal). It is therefore important to ensure that suppliers’ policies are
reviewed.
Businesses should also consider all places in which their policies are represented,
such as in-store signage, printed on receipts, websites and the statement staff make
to customers. Store staff also need to have adequate knowledge of consumer’s
rights and all businesses should have an appropriate complaints handling system to
ensure that all customer complaints are handled promptly and professionally.
Businesses may also wish to consider displaying the recently released national point-
of-sale sign that informs customers of their rights to a repair, refund or exchange of
faulty goods. This sign replaces other government approved signs that were
applicable to the previous state and federal legislation. Although the sign is not
mandatory, retailers are encouraged to display the sign at their point-of-sale such as
a cash register.
Consumer guarantees under the ACL are unlimited as they were under the Trade
Practices Act. A guarantee that cannot be excluded allows the consumer to recover
their loss not just the cost of replacing the defective good.
ACL: Defects, Warranties and Unfair Contracts Steven Brown Page 20
Schematic of (new) Australian Consumer Guarantee
Guarantees
Required by Law
Offered though not required by law
Types of Guarantees Given to Consumers
New
Who is a Consumer
Note what are consumer goods can be surprising: Carpet Call v Chan (1987) ATPR 46-025 - Carpet in a night club a consumer good
Australia Consumer Law (ACL) Subtopic
Contractual warranty
Representation that is actionable under s 18 of ACL - misleading and deceptive conduct
Defined by s3 ACL Goods ordinarily acquired for
personal use
domestic use
household use
ACL: Defects, Warranties and Unfair Contracts Steven Brown Page 21
Unfair Contract Changes
Laws attempting to deal with unfair contract terms in consumer contracts are not a
new phenomenon. Indeed when Senator Murphy (latter His Honour Justice Murphy)
introduced the Act into the Senate in 1973 he said about Part V of the then bill (which
became the TPA): “The age of caveat emptor is now dead. It is now the age of let the
seller beware.” This sentiment is current. The second reading speech for the ACL
noted that in regards unfair contract laws: “…. similar laws … have been in place in
Victoria since 2003. And laws tackling unfair contract terms exist in the United
Kingdom, in the rest of the European Union, in Japan and in South Africa. Laws
which allow for the examination of the fairness of contracts and contract terms also
exist in jurisdictions in Canada and the United States.”
How does the unfair contract terms law differ from unconscionable conduct?
The ACL introduces new consumer protection provisions to the TPA and the
Australian Securities and Investment Commission Act (“ASIC Act”) in the form of the
unconscionable conduct have existed in the both pieces of legislation for some time,
but there are differences between the two regimes that will ensure their concurrent
operation.
The unconscionable conduct provisions deal with the conduct of a party entering into
a contract or other transaction, and/or its conduct once the contract has been entered
into, rather than an assessment of terms of the particular contract. Part IVA of the
TPA contains a range of factors that the court may consider when determining
whether conduct has been unconscionable. These factors may include any
contractual terms (for example, whether the consumer was required to comply with
conditions not reasonably necessary to protect the interests of the supplier, or
whether the consumer understood documentation relating to the supply), but extend
to broader concepts such as the use of unfair tactics, undue influence or pressure by
the supplier. The list is broad and non-exclusive.
Some factors contained in the unconscionable conduct provisions are similar to those
in the list of considerations that the court must take into account when determining
ACL: Defects, Warranties and Unfair Contracts Steven Brown Page 22
whether a contract term is unfair under the unfair contract terms provisions of the
ACL. For example, both the unconscionable conduct provisions and the unfair
contract terms provisions provide for consideration by the court of the extent of each
party’s bargaining power in relation to the contract. However, the relative strengths of
the parties’ bargaining positions in the unconscionable conduct provisions is only one
factor that the court may (and is not required to) take into account. Conversely, under
the unfair contract terms provisions, the court is required to determine as the first
limb of the test for unfairness whether a term in a consumer contract would cause a
‘significant imbalance’ in the parties’ rights and obligations arising under the contract.
In determining whether a term of a consumer contract is unfair, the court may take
into account any matters it considers relevant but must take into account the extent
to which the term is transparent and the contract as a whole.
The ACL is a schedule to the TPA, so that it can easily be applied by the States and
Territories into their respective legislation. It is important to note that the definition of
a consumer under section 4B of the TPA is broader than the definition of a consumer
for purposes of a consumer contract under the ACL.
Under section 4B of the TPA, a person (including a corporation) is deemed to be a
consumer, where the goods or services acquired by the consumer were ‘of a kind
ordinarily acquired for personal, domestic, or household use or consumption’ (subject
to certain exceptions and provided the price of the goods or services exceeds the
prescribed amount). The definition of a consumer in section 4B is focused on the
nature of the goods or services purchased. Such goods or services may satisfy the
test as being of a kind ordinarily acquired for personal, domestic, or household use
even though they may also be of a kind acquired for business use. For example see
the case of Carpet Call Pty Ltd v Chan (1987) ASC 55-553; where commercial
grade carpet used in a night club was held to be a good acquired for personal,
domestic or household use.
Under the unfair contract term provisions of the ACL, a consumer contract is defined
as a contract for the supply of goods or services or a sale or grant of an interest in
land ‘to an individual whose acquisition of the goods, services, or interest is wholly or
predominantly for personal, domestic, or household use or consumption.’ The
ACL: Defects, Warranties and Unfair Contracts Steven Brown Page 23
definition is narrower because it focuses on the purposes of the contract under which
purchaser acquires the goods or services and not on the nature of the goods or
services purchased. There is no monetary limit specified.
On 17 March 2010 the ACL introduced laws regulating unfair contract terms.
The unfair contract terms have now commenced.
The unfair contract terms provisions will apply only to standard form consumer
contracts—for example, contracts for the supply of goods or services to an individual
whose acquisition is wholly or predominantly for personal, domestic or household
use or consumption.
To assist businesses, legal practitioners, consumers and industry organisations
understand the new unfair contract terms laws, national guidance has been
developed. The draft publication Australian Consumer Law: A guide to unfair contract
terms (the “Draft”) provides information on the types of contracts and contract terms
which may be affected by these new laws. Remember, that even when the Guide is
no longer a draft it is nevertheless only the ACCC’s views of what courts might do
not what they will or must do when they come to interpret the amendments.
The unfair contract terms provisions apply to ‘consumer contracts’ as defined by both
the ACL and the ASIC Act.
Under the ACL, a ‘consumer contract’ is a contract for:
• the supply of goods or services, or
• sale or grant of an interest in land;
to an individual whose acquisition of the goods, services or interest in land is wholly
or predominantly for personal, domestic or household use or consumption (ACL, s.3).
Under the ASIC Act, a similar definition of a consumer contract applies in relation
financial products and services (ASIC Act, s.12BF).
An “interest” in relation to the land means:
ACL: Defects, Warranties and Unfair Contracts Steven Brown Page 24
(a) a legal or equitable estate or interest in the land; or
(b) a right of occupancy of the land or of a building or part of the building
erected on the land arising by virtue of the holding of shares, or by
virtue of a contract to purchase shares in an incorporated company that
owns the land or building; or
(c) a right, power or privilege over, or in connection with, the land. (ACL
Part 1, Clause 1).
Four points to note in relation to the meaning of a “consumer contract” are:
1. The definition does not limit the operation of the unfair contract term
provisions to things of a personal, domestic or household nature. The
definition will include the supply of any good, service or interest in land to a
consumer provided the acquisition of what is supplied under the contract is
wholly or predominantly for personal, domestic or household use or
consumption. For instance, is a loan taken over a directors home where the
director uses the money received to invest in his or her business a consumer
contract or not?
2. The definition of “interest” goes beyond the usual notions of legal or equitable
estates. The definition extends the meaning to include a right of occupancy of
land arising by virtue of holding shares in a company, or a contract to
purchase shares in a company that owns the land or the building. The
definition extends the normal concept of an interest in land. It also includes a
right, power or privilege over or connection with the land. This too may go far
beyond normal concepts of equitable interests in land.
3. The definition of “interest” could cause an interesting conflict in how courts
deal with what is a consumer contract. As the extended definition allows
courts to treat a “contract to purchase shares in an incorporated company that
owns land or building, as a “consumer contract”. Yet that same contract could
be the constitution of the incorporated company which is an expressly
excluded contract for the purposes of the ACL. How the courts will address
this issue when the time comes will be interesting.
ACL: Defects, Warranties and Unfair Contracts Steven Brown Page 25
4. The definition of consumer is not the same as the definition of consumer for
the purposes of the statutory warranties. The definition is more restrictive. It is
restricted to predominantly for consumer purposes not ordinarily acquired. If
this definition was used for the Carpet Call v Chan case a different result
would most likely arise.
What is a standard form contract?
The ACL does not define the term “standard form contract”. The Draft at page 5
states: "..in broad terms a standard form consumer contract will typically be one that
has been prepared by one party to the contract and is not subject to negotiation
between the parties – that is, it is offered on a ‘take it or leave it’ basis."
Section 7(2) of the ACL provides guidance to a court in determining whether there is
a standard form contract by considering the following:
(a) Whether one of the parties has all or most of the bargaining power relating to the
transaction;
(b) Whether the contract was prepared by one party before any discussion relating to
the transaction occurred between the parties;
(c) Whether another party was, in effect, required either to accept or reject the terms
of the contract in the form in which it was presented;
(d) Whether another party was given an effective opportunity to negotiate the terms
of the contract;
(e) Whether the terms of the contract take into account the specific characteristics of
another party or the particular transaction; and
(f) Any other matter prescribed by regulation (The ACL provides for the Minister to
augment the list by Regulation to allow the list of considerations to be expanded
ACL: Defects, Warranties and Unfair Contracts Steven Brown Page 26
in response to changes in markets and the way in which standard form contracts
are construed and used (s7(2)(f) ACL).
The onus of proving that a contract is not a standard form contract is reversed. The
business operator has the onus of establishing that there were free and frank
negotiations before the contract was entered into. The Draft at page 6, states that
the onus of proof is reversed as a businesses will be better placed to bring evidence
in respect of the nature of the contract it uses and the way in which it deals with its
counterparties. Whereas the individual will only have evidence that is particular to
their transaction along and not have the evidence about how the business operates.
This takes up the comments in the Explanatory Memorandum at paragraph 108,
which read:
“If a party wishes to argue that the contract has been negotiated and is
not in a standard form, then the rebuttable presumption requires the
party that presents the contract to show that the contract is not a
standard form contract. This reflects that:
(a) the claimant will usually only have evidence of the existence of
one contract - their own; and
(b) the respondent is best placed to bring evidence regarding the
nature of the contracts it uses and the way in which it deals with
other parties to such contracts, including whether negotiations
have been entered into.”
The unfair contract terms provisions do not apply to the following terms of a standard
form consumer contract that are excluded by section 5(1) of the ACL or 12BI(1) of
the ASIC Act:
Ø terms that define the main subject matter of a consumer contract;
Ø terms that set the ‘upfront price’ payable under the contract;
Ø terms that are required, or expressly permitted, by a law of the
Commonwealth or a State or a Territory; or
Ø Contracts excluded by regulation.
ACL: Defects, Warranties and Unfair Contracts Steven Brown Page 27
The practical result of the ACL is that it will apply to all commonly known forms of
standard consumer contracts. That is, unless the business can show a real and
genuine intention to present a draft contract for the supply of goods or services and
to engage in effective negotiations with the consumer on the terms of such supply, it
is difficult to envisage a practical situation in high volume consumer transactions that
will not be caught.
Terms that define the main subject matter of a consumer contract
The purpose for exempting these terms is said to remove from consumers the ability
to avoid their contractual obligations because of a simple change of mind. (Draft p7)
Terms that set the ‘upfront price’ payable under the contract
The rationale is that the upfront price is easily understood by consumers, and when
the price is stated in an upfront manner it is unlikely to create any imbalance in the
parties' rights and obligations.
The Draft at p8 provides examples as follows:
“The ‘upfront price’ would not include further payments under the contract that are
contingent on the occurrence or non-occurrence of a particular event. This would
exclude from the upfront price, for example, provisions that impose fees for additional
goods or services that are not identified at the time the contract was made and
default penalty fees or exit fees.
In the context of a financial product or service, for example a consumer credit
agreement, the upfront price includes the amount borrowed and the interest payable
and any fees disclosed at the time the contract is entered into but does not include
contingent fees, often referred to as default fees.”
However, I am not convinced that the views of the ACCC will necessarily be those of
the Courts. Why wouldn't a late penalty fee if clearly set out in a standard form
ACL: Defects, Warranties and Unfair Contracts Steven Brown Page 28
contract at the time the contract was entered into be the same as the interest payable
at the time the contract was entered into.
Surely if the new provisions will be that easily circumvented they would seem not to
be of much use or benefit to consumers.
Terms that are required, or expressly permitted, by a law
The amendments are not intended to apply to terms of contracts that are required or
expressly permitted by a law of the Commonwealth, or a State or a Territory, but only
to the extent that they are required or permitted. This is self evident as it is not
appropriate for the courts to determine whether a term is unfair when it has been
mandated by a law to be included in the form of contract before it.
Contracts excluded from new amendments
Certain contracts even if standard in form are expressly excluded from being
reviewed by the ACL amendments. These contracts are:
Ø Shipping contracts;
Ø Constitutions of companies, Management investment schemes or other kinds
of bodies; and
Ø Most insurance contracts will not be reviewable by the new amendments due
to section 15 of the Insurance Contracts Act.
Note: As Private Health insurance contracts are not regulated by the Insurance
Contracts Act (see section 9 of that act) then to the extent they are standard form
consumer contracts their terms will fall for consideration under the amendments.
When will a term be "unfair"
Under the ACL amendments a term in a consumer contract is unfair if three limbs are
all satisfied:
ACL: Defects, Warranties and Unfair Contracts Steven Brown Page 29
• First - it would cause a significant imbalance in the parties’ rights and obligations
arising under the contract; and
• Second - the term is not reasonably necessary to protect the legitimate interests
of the party who would be advantaged by the term; and
• Third - it would cause detriment (whether financial or otherwise) to a party if it
were to be applied or relied on.
Significant imbalance
There is no statutory definition of the concept of significant imbalance, nor any
assistance in the Explanatory Memorandum which at paragraph 51 simply reads:
“This would involve a factual determination of whether any such significant imbalance
exists.”
The Explanatory Memorandum does disclose that the amendments are based upon
Victoria’s Fair Trading Act 1999. Consequently, some guidance from that case law on
the equivalent sections will be useful.
The words ‘significant imbalance’ in the context of Part 2B of the Victoria’s Fair
Trading Act 1999, were considered by Cavanough J in Jetstar Airways Pty Ltd v
Free [2008] VSC 539. In that case, Cavanough J interpreted the term ‘significant
imbalance’ in the Victorian law as follows:
[I]n the phrase "significant imbalance", the word "significant" seems to me to carry, or
to include, a quantitative sense. The word can certainly carry the meaning
"substantial". As Thomas JA said in Emaas v Mobil Oil Australia Ltd, the word
"significant" very much takes its meaning from the context in which it is used… I
recognise the perils of attempting to paraphrase statutory language, but, in my view,
the context of the word "significant" in section 32W shows that it means, principally at
least, "significant in magnitude", or "sufficiently large to be important", being a
meaning not too distant from "substantial”.
Whilst trite all that can be said now is that “significant imbalance” will be determined
by the courts as a mixed question of both fact and law. The courts will need to
determine the relevant rights and obligations of each party and then a “balancing”
ACL: Defects, Warranties and Unfair Contracts Steven Brown Page 30
assessment to determine whether there is a significant imbalance as between the
parties’ rights and obligations.
In the area of industrial law the courts in New South Wales have been considering
what is an unfair contract for some time and continue to do so when interpreting and
applying Part 9 Division 2 of the Industrial Relations Act 1966 (NSW) and its
predecessors in section 275 of the Industrial Relations Act 1991 (NSW) and
section 88f of the Industrial Arbitration Act 1940 (NSW). Since, 2007 the Federal
Courts have been required to do similarly in regards independent contracts under the
Independent Contractors Act 2006 (Cth).
However, another commentator has said: “To me at least, this seems like an unusual
test and one which could be quite difficult to apply. From the supplier’s point of view,
it may involve giving factual evidence as to the practical consequences of its
warranty obligations for example compared to the simple obligation of the consumer
to pay the purchase price.” (See Booth, Peter, Victorian Bar, Paper 20 August, 2009
at paragraph 27.)
Not reasonably necessary
The second limb to be satisfied before a term in a contract is declared “unfair” is that
its existence was not reasonably necessary. The onus is on the respondent to
establish, on the balance of probabilities, that the term which the consumer alleges is
“unfair” was reasonably necessary to protect the legitimate interests of the party who
would be advantaged by the term: in most cases the business operator (see s3(1)(b)
ACL). The reason for this is that the terms in a consumer contract are presumed not
be reasonably necessary unless the party that seeks to reply upon them can prove
otherwise to the court (see s.3(4) ACL).
The type of evidence that might be introduced to prove that a term is necessary to
protect the legitimate interest of the business on the balance of probabilities could
include material relating to the respondent’s costs and business structure, the need
for the mitigation of risks and relevant industry practices to the extent that such
material is relevant to establishing that a term or terms are reasonably necessary to
protect the respondent’s legitimate interests. Evidence that it is common practice in
ACL: Defects, Warranties and Unfair Contracts Steven Brown Page 31
the industry may not be all that useful unless and until court decisions in upholding
the legitimate interests of a party have been established.
The approach taken by the ACL appears to be predicated on the premise that
freedom of contract operates and should continue to operate. Whether this is indeed
correct is not known but whether it is something that should be maintained is
something which the Parliament did not consider. Consumers in reality have when
entering into contracts the choice of accepting the business standard form contract or
not. Negotiating terms is not a possibility. The notion that freedom of contract has
any scope in the contracts entered into between consumers and business is fanciful.
This limb adds an additional factual consideration that a respondent will need to
prove in each case. Any evidence that can demonstrate that the inclusion of the term
was reasonably necessary may be led. Accordingly, the factual issues are expanded.
With more facts to deal with the greater will be the cost of defending such litigation.
As Peter Booth states at paragraph 31 of his paper: “It is not hard to foresee that
evidence of that type might be quite complex and involve considerations of effect on
the market were such a term to be held to be void.”
Detriment
Detriment is not limited to financial detriment. This is designed to allow the court to
consider situations where there may be other forms of detriment that have affected or
may affect consumers disadvantaged by the practical effect of an unfair term. Other
forms of detriment may include inconvenience, delay or distress suffered by the
consumer as a result of the unfair term.
The claimant in the proceedings will be required to prove detriment as part of their
claim that the term is unfair. This aligns the unfair contract terms provisions more
closely with the unfair contract terms provisions contained in the Victorian Fair
Trading Act.
Sections 4(1)(a)-(h) ACL, and sections 12BH(1)(a)-(h) ASIC Act, set out, without
limitation, examples of the kinds of terms of a consumer contract that may be unfair,
such as the business operator:
ACL: Defects, Warranties and Unfair Contracts Steven Brown Page 32
(a) avoiding or limiting their performance of the contract;
(b) terminating the contract;
(c) penalising the consumer for a breach of termination;
(d) varying the terms of the contract;
(e) renewing or not renewing the contract;
(f) varying the upfront price payable under the contract without the
consumer being able to terminate it;
(g) varying the characteristics of the goods or services supplied or financial
services supplied to or to be supplied under the contract;
(h) determining whether the contract has been breached or to interpret its
meaning.
By way of expanding the examples we will consider four situations.
(1) Section 4(1)(a) ACL, section 12BH(1)(a) ASIC Act - a term that permits, or
has the effect of permitting, one party (but not another party) to avoid or limit
performance of the contract
Terms that permit a supplier to avoid or limit its performance of its obligations under
the contract, at its discretion and without liability, otherwise known as an exclusion
clause, has the potential to cause a significant imbalance in the parties’ rights and
obligations arising under the contract.
Terms may be less likely to be considered unfair if they are qualified in such a way
that consumers understand when and how they are likely to be affected, or if the
terms outline reimbursements available to the consumers when such terms are relied
upon by the supplier.
ACL: Defects, Warranties and Unfair Contracts Steven Brown Page 33
(2) Section 4(1)(b) ACL, section 12BH(1)(b) ASIC Act - a term that permits, or
has the effect of permitting, one party (but not another party) to terminate the
contract
Terms that allow the supplier to cancel a fixed term contract at will, without having
any valid business reason or in response to an inconsequential breach of contract by
the consumer, may be considered unfair by a court.
An example of this arose in the Victorian case of Director of Consumer Affairs
Victoria v AAPT Limited [2006] VCAT 1493 at 53, where Morris J found that an
immediate termination clause in a mobile phone contract potentially had broad
application:
A customer may have breached the agreement in a manner which is inconsequential,
yet faces the prospect of having the service terminated. Further, if the customer
changes his or her address (which will not necessarily be the address for receipt of
billing information) this will also provide a ground to AAPT to terminate the
Agreement. Because these provisions are so broadly drawn, and are one sided in
their operation, they are unfair terms within the meaning of the Fair Trading Act.
Terms may also be considered unfair if they undermine the consumer’s right to
terminate the contract. Terms which state or imply that the consumer cannot cancel
the contract under any circumstances or only with the supplier’s agreement,
regardless of the supplier’s action or omission under the contract, may be considered
unfair.
(3) Section 4(1)(c) ACL, section 12BH(1)(c) ASIC Act - a term that penalises,
or has the effect of penalising, one party (but not another party) for a breach or
termination of the contract
Terms imposing penalties for trivial breaches of a contract committed inadvertently
by consumers may be unfair.
ACL: Defects, Warranties and Unfair Contracts Steven Brown Page 34
A contract may also be considered unfair if it threatens sanctions over and above
those that can be imposed at law.
A term that imposes a penalty on a consumer for terminating a contract because the
supplier has not complied with its obligations under the contract is likely to be at risk
of being considered unfair in some circumstances. An example of this may be where
a supplier is unable to supply a product ordered by a consumer by the date specified
in the contract, but also refuses to refund any money paid by the consumer if they
attempt to terminate the contract due to the non-delivery.
(4) Section 4(1)(d) ACL, section 12BH(1)(d) ASIC Act - a term that permits, or
has the effect of permitting, one party (but not another party) to vary the terms of
the contract
A contract term that provides a right for one party to alter the terms of the contract
after it has been agreed, without the consent of the other party or without notice, may
be unfair. This may operate similarly to a term that permits one party (but not the
other party) to avoid or limit performance of the contract.
If a term could require a consumer to accept increased costs or penalties, new
requirements, or reduced benefits, for example, it may be considered unfair. A
unilateral variation clause may cause a significant imbalance in the rights of the
parties to the contract even if it was intended solely to facilitate minor adjustments.
This applies to terms giving the supplier the right to make corrections to contracts at
its discretion and without liability.
An example of an unfair unilateral variation clause was identified in the Victorian case
of Director of Consumer Affairs Victoria v Train Station Health Clubs Pty Ltd
(Civil Claims) [2008] VCAT 2092. The Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal
found that a clause in a consumer contract allowing the health club operator to
unilaterally change the location of the club within a 12 kilometre radius of the club’s
original location, among other things, was unfair “in that it is a term to which the
consumers’ attention is not specifically drawn, and which may operate in a way in
which the consumer may not expect and to his or her disadvantage.”
ACL: Defects, Warranties and Unfair Contracts Steven Brown Page 35
A variation clause may be more likely to be acceptable if it can be exercised by either
party and only for legitimate reasons stated in the contract which are clear and
specific enough to ensure the power to vary cannot be used by the supplier at will to
suit its interests, or in a manner that would be detrimental to consumers. For
example, a unilateral variation clause may be acceptable where:
• the potential circumstance for its operation is clearly expressed in the contract,
• it is reasonably necessary to protect the legitimate interests of the party using the
term, and
• where the consumer has a right to cancel the contract, without penalty, if the
change is detrimental to the consumer.
In determining whether a term of a standard form consumer contract is unfair, a court
may take into consideration any matter that it thinks relevant. It must, however, take
into consideration the following:
• the extent to which the term is transparent; and
• the contract as a whole.
A 'transparent' term
A lack of transparency regarding a term in a standard form consumer contract may
cause a significant imbalance in the parties’ rights and obligations.
A term is considered to be transparent if it is:
• expressed in reasonably plain language;
• legible;
• presented clearly; and
• readily available to any party affected by the term. (see s3(3) ACL)
Examples of terms which may not be considered transparent include terms that are
hidden in fine print or schedules, or that are phrased in legalese or in complex or
technical language.
Again, it is important to note that only the court can determine what a ‘transparent
term’ is for the purposes of the unfair contract terms provisions.
ACL: Defects, Warranties and Unfair Contracts Steven Brown Page 36
Although the court must take into account the transparency requirement, a contract
that does not meet the transparency requirement will not necessarily be unfair.
Further, transparency, on its own account, will not necessarily overcome underlying
unfairness in a contract term. The UK unfair contract terms provisions use the term
‘plain and intelligible language’ rather than ‘transparent’. Despite the difference, the
finding of Smith J in Office of Fair Trading v Abbey National PLC [2008] EWHC
875 may provide some guidance:
“Regulation 6(2)…requires not only the actual wording of individual clauses or
conditions be comprehensible to consumers, but that the typical consumer can
understand how the term affects the rights and obligations that he and the seller
or supplier have under the contract.”
The fairness or otherwise of a particular contractual term cannot be considered in
isolation, and must be assessed in light of the contract as a whole. Some terms that
might seem quite unfair in one context may not be unfair in another context.
An apparently unfair term may be regarded in a better light when seen in the context
of other counter-balancing terms. However, in Director of Consumer Affairs
Victoria v AAPT [2006] VCAT 1493, Morris J said that even if a contract contains
terms that favour the consumer, such favourable terms may not counterbalance an
unfair term if the consumer is unaware of them.
Examples include implied terms, or terms that are hidden in fine print, in a schedule
or in another document, or are written in legalese. This may result in an information
imbalance in favour of the supplier. The concept of looking at the contract as whole
in regards to where and how terms are located introduces an entirely new concept of
contractual interpretation. To date the court has been concerned solely with the
substance of a contract. It seems that the concept of “considering the contract as a
whole” is introducing a form element into how courts should interpret contracts. Not
only must they be substantively fair, the appearance of a standard form contract
could by the use of small print and complicated definitions result in the contract being
unfair due to its very form.
ACL: Defects, Warranties and Unfair Contracts Steven Brown Page 37
In summary, the requirements of “transparency” and looking at the stand form
consumer contract as a whole, appear to have been introduced to act against the
business operator, in the sense that the more difficult the term is to comprehend, or
find, the more likely it is that it will be seen by a court as “unfair”.
The effect of an unfair term on the contract
A finding by a court that a term is unfair, and therefore void, means that the term is
treated as if it never existed. However the contract will continue to bind the affected
parties to the extent that the contract is capable of operating without the unfair term.
Under section 87AC of the TPA and 12GBA of the ASIC Act, the ACCC, ASIC or a
party to a standard form consumer contract may apply to the court for a declaration
that a term of the contract is an unfair term. When the States and Territories apply
the ACL in their jurisdictions, they may also allow for similar actions under their
respective legislation.
A business that is found to have included an unfair term in a consumer contract a
wide. To assist the imagination of the courts Parliament has enhanced the list of
remedies as follows:
Civil pecuniary penalties will be available for conduct that does not warrant a
criminal penalty and will now include the unconscionable conduct provisions and the
unfair contract terms provisions of the ASIC Act. These penalties vary. The maximum
penalties are consistent with those presently available for breaches of certain
consumer protection provisions of the TPA ($1.1 million for corporations and
$220,000 for individuals).
Disqualification orders are also made available for breaches of certain provisions
of the ASIC Act (including those relating to unconscionable conduct, pyramid selling,
certain product safety and product information and the use of prescribed unfair
contract terms). Disqualification orders will prohibit individuals from managing
ACL: Defects, Warranties and Unfair Contracts Steven Brown Page 38
corporations or engaging in particular activities in connection with the management of
corporations.
Substantiation notices ASIC and ACCC have the power to issue substantiation
notices requiring a business to provide information or documents capable of
substantiating a representation made by the business in relation to the supply or
possible supply of financial services (ASIC) and goods and non-financial services
(ACCC).
Infringement Notices may be issued by ACCC and ASIC for breaches of certain
parts of the ACL and ASIC Act, including the unfair contract terms provisions, with
penalties of up to $6,600. These are designed to supplement more serious penalties
by facilitating relatively small financial penalties for minor contraventions without
requiring court proceedings.
Public warning notices may be issued by ACCC and ASIC to inform the public of
potentially harmful conduct without the need for a court order.
Redress Orders ASIC and ACCC may seek court orders requiring a business to
provide redress to consumers who are not parties to a particular enforcement
proceeding. This power is designed to be used where a large number of consumers
suffer similar identifiable damage. The redress can take a number of forms, including
refunds, the variation of a contract or orders to honour representations.
Injunctions prohibiting offending conduct of the way a contract is entered into or a
form of contract not to be used could be made (section 80 of the TPA; section 12GD
of the ASIC Act).
Orders prohibiting payment or transfer of moneys or other property can be
made by the court (section 87A of the TPA; section 12GN of the ASIC Act).
Orders to provide redress to non-party consumers (section 87AAA of the TPA
Act; section 12GNB of the ASIC Act).
ACL: Defects, Warranties and Unfair Contracts Steven Brown Page 39
Any other orders the court thinks appropriate (section 87 of the TPA; section
12GM of the ASIC Act).
Enforcement
The amendments will be overseen by:
Ø The ACCC (and State Departments of Fair Trading) for consumer non-financial
consumer contracts which oddly enough includes interest in land.
Ø ASIC for consumer financial contracts.
As under the TPA and ASIC Act, prior to the amendments, ASIC and ACCC are not
required to take enforcement action when they become aware of a breach of the ACL
or ASIC Act. Each has the right but not the obligation to prosecute wrong doing when
in their opinion they see it.
Individual consumers can also take action to protect their interests. The approach of
the amendments is ex post in that their operations in a practical sense depends
upon litigation, of what is an unfair term and what is a term that is or is not
reasonably necessary in a standard form contract, will (unless the term is a
prohibited term) have to depend upon the outcome of case law.
The approach may be well and good but it is addressing the issues case by case and
not in a wholesale manner. The difficulty is as Tonking SC has said at paragraph 6:
“The (Contracts Review Act 1980 (NSW)) has been in place for nearly 30 years and
‘is probably still developing’. This is understandable when regard is had to the fact
that much of the enforcement of unfair terms has de minimis consequences, such
that the party affected will be disinclined to consider the detriment sufficient to
warrant the time and effort, let alone costs and risks, associated with litigation.”
Whether consumers will be considered enough to take costly litigation is yet to be
seen.
ACL: Defects, Warranties and Unfair Contracts Steven Brown Page 40
Managing your risks or How it affects competition in the market place
The amendments are significant and far reaching. They have the potential to expose
businesses to significant risk if not managed carefully.
Having regard to the above, the term "standard form contract", is likely to capture
most non-negotiable, general "terms and conditions" agreements given to consumers
to sign before a company provides its goods or services, such as:
• banking documents, including mortgages and credit card terms and
conditions;
• terms and conditions attaching to airline, train, bus and taxi travel;
• terms and conditions attaching to the transport of produce or possessions
for personal, domestic or household use;
• contracts for utilities, including telephone, internet, electricity and gas
contracts;
• contracts for the sale and purchase of land principally by developers;
• residential leases; and
• contracts for recreational services such as tickets to concerts or sporting
events.
Businesses should:
• Review existing standard form contracts to consider: o whether those contracts contain any possible unfair terms; and o if so, whether the terms are ‘reasonably necessary’.
• If the terms are not reasonably necessary, serious consideration should be
given to whether they should simply be removed as they may well serve no
real purpose or address any real or potential risk.
• If the term is considered to be reasonably necessary, it is important for
businesses to document the basis for the term in the event that there is a
subsequent challenge and consider whether the term should be disclosed
in a particular way to ensure it is ‘transparent’.
• Review existing contracts which use a standard form and where there are
provisions for variation or extension after 1 January 2010 to consider: o Whether they contain any unfair terms; o Whether the terms are reasonably necessary;
ACL: Defects, Warranties and Unfair Contracts Steven Brown Page 41
o If the terms are reasonably necessary, consider disclosing the terms
so that they are ‘transparent’ and document a business case for why
the term is ‘reasonably necessary’;
• Start to consider and document why terms are included into their standard
contracts. Having concurrent evidence supporting why a term is reasonable
will have greater probative value that an argument seeking to defend a term
that might appear to a court a creature of recent invention. Alternatively,
are there sound commercial/business reasons behind the existence of the
clause? Are there industry-standard terms, such as an acknowledgment
that one party has read and understood the contract? If there are, then you
need to closely monitor the development of the new unfair contracts laws.
• Ensure there is an appropriate and well communicated procedure for
creating and entering into standard form contracts that involve some
compliance or legal review;
• Ensure staff are properly inducted and trained on the use of standard form
contracts and potentially unfair terms.
The new law is described as consumer legislation. However, the provisions reach far
beyond consumer contracts to provide a powerful weapon by which many other
agreements will also be able to be challenged - franchisees will use the legislation to
strike down terms in franchise agreements, tenants (both commercial and residential)
will be able to use them to avoid harsh lease provisions, and independent contractors
will have a powerful new tool to challenge provisions in quasi-employment
agreements. As mentioned above the new laws have conflicts as to interests in land
being subject to the laws but constitutions are excluded. Yet what will be the situation
when a constitution deals with an interest in land such a company title matter. As a
result, the new provisions are quickly likely to become among the most litigated
provisions in the TPA vying for the title of most litigated section with section 52 of the
TPA.
A schematic has been developed by a firm. A copy appears on the next page.
ACL: Defects, Warranties and Unfair Contracts Steven Brown Page 42