Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977

The Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977 (c. 50) is an act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom which regulates contracts by restricting the operation and legality of some contract terms. It extends to nearly all forms of contract and one of its most important functions is limiting the applicability of disclaimers of liability. The terms extend to both actual contract terms and notices that are seen to constitute a contractual obligation.

The act renders terms excluding or limiting liability ineffective or subject to reasonableness, depending on the nature of the obligation purported to be excluded and whether the party is purporting to exclude or limit business liability, acting against a consumer.

It is normally used in conjunction with the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999 (SI 1999/2083), as well as the Sale of Goods Act 1979 and the Supply of Goods and Services Act 1982.

The Law Commission and the Scottish Law Commission have recommended that the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999 and the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977 should be replaced by a more unified and coherent regime.The Law Commission, 'Unfair Terms in Contracts' (LC292, 2005) As of 2015, the Law Commission's recommendations were implemented in part by Part 2 of the Consumer Rights Act 2015.

Terms rendered ineffective

Negligence. s2(1), liability for negligence occasioning death or personal injury cannot be excluded.

Manufacturers' guarantee. s5(1), loss arising from (a) defective goods or (b) negligence of distributor cannot be excluded where goods are "of a type ordinarily supplied for private use or consumption".

Sale of goods s6(1), implied terms as to title (Sale of Goods Act 1979 s12) cannot be excluded. s6(2), implied terms as to description, quality or sample (Sale of Goods Act 1979 ss13-15) cannot be excluded against a consumer.

Terms governed by the Consumer Protection Act 1987.

They are also governed (since 2007) by the Occupiers Liability Act 1984.

Terms subject to reasonableness Negligence. s2(2), exclusion of liability for all types of negligence (other than for death or personal injury which is banned) must satisfy the requirement of reasonableness.

Contractual liability. s3, This applies against a party that deals on standard written terms or where the other party deals as a consumer. Any exclusion by that party for liability arising from a breach committed by that party under the same contract (s3(2)(a)) or performance under a contract which is substantially or totally different of that which is reasonably expected of him (s(3)(b)) shall be void except insofar as it satisfies the requirement of reasonableness.

Indemnity clauses. s4, A party dealing as a consumer cannot contract to indemnify a third party on behalf of the other party, except insofar as it satisfies the requirement of reasonableness.

Sale of goods. s6(3), Implied terms as to description, quality and sample (Sale of Goods Act 1979 ss 13–15) may only be reasonably excluded where neither party is dealing as a consumer.

Misrepresentation. s8, substitutes the Misrepresentation Act 1967 s3. Under that post-1979 section, an exclusion of liability for misrepresentation must satisfy the requirement of reasonableness.

Definition of consumer and business

Business. s 1(3), The act only applies to "liability for breach of obligations or duties arising (a) from things done or to be done by a person in the course of a business (whether his own business or another's); or (b) from the occupation of premises used for business purposes of the occupier". s14, Includes any government department.

Consumer. s 12,As amended by the Sale and Supply of Goods to Consumers Regulations 2002 A party deals as a consumer if s12(1)(a), He is not in the course of a business and does not hold himself to do so.Holding himself is important as a party who is otherwise a consumer may attempt to act in the guise of a business for tax benefits or to shop at wholesale stores. s12(1)(b), the other party is in the course of a business. s12(1)(c), In a contract for sale of goods, the goods are of a type "ordinarily supplied for private use or consumption" (s12(1A), this subsection does not apply to individuals) s12(2), A party is not a consumer if dealing at an auction where he has the opportunity to attend in person or is not a natural person buying auction. s12(3), Burden is upon the party purported to be acting in the course of a business to show that either he is not in the course of a business or that the other party is otherwise not a consumer.

Definition of reasonableness

Section 11 provides some guidance but most development has been in common law.

Schedule 2 gives guidelines specifically to ss 6(3), 7(3), 7(4).

Case law Stewart Gill Ltd v Horatio Myer & Co Ltd. 2 All ER 257 provides that reasonableness is assessed at the time of contract; and that the burden of proof is upon the party purporting to have excluded liability. Levison v Patent Steam Carpet Cleaning Co Ltd. 3 WLR 90 provides that clarity and preciseness will raise the reasonableness of a term; and vice versa. See also Stag Line Ltd v Tyne Ship Repair Group Ltd. 2 Lloyd's Rep 211 as to small print (literally – relating to the size of the lettering). Smith v Eric S Bush. 1 AC 831 Lord Griffith provides four points that may be considered (see application in St Albans City and District Council v International Computers Ltd(1996) The Times 14 August): Equality of bargaining powers. How practical was it to obtain independent legal advice regarding the term? How difficult is the task being undertaken for which liability is being excluded? What are the practical consequences of ruling that a term is unreasonable? Pegler v Wang (2000) is an exclusion of liability case noted within a family of legal cases relating to "system supply contracts",MacDonald, E., Watford v Sanderson: The requirement of reasonableness in system supply contracts and more generally, Web Journal of Current Legal Issues , accessed 7 May 2022 relating to the purchase of an IT system which, the customer argued, did not do what was wanted.England and Wales High Court (Technology and Construction Court), Pegler Ltd. v Wang (UK) Ltd., (2000), EWHC Technology 137, 25 February 2000, accessed 11 November 2022 The purchasers (Pegler) had made it clear that they preferred a system installation whose performance could be "certainly guaranteed" rather than a better-functioning system whose operation might not be satisfactory.Swarbrick, D., Pegler Ltd v Wang (UK) Ltd: TCC 25 Feb 2000, accessed 7 May 2022 The exemption clause in this particular case was held to be unreasonable, and the judge made an order for rectification of the contract to include certain correspondence relied on by Pegler. A further hearing arose as to costs.England and Wales Court of Appeal (Civil Division), Pegler Ltd v Wang (UK) Ltd & Anor (2001), EWCA Civ 1019, judgment dated 18 June 2001, accessed 11 November 2022 Other relevant cases include Watford Electronics v Sanderson (2001),Pinsent Masons, Watford Electronics v Sanderson, published 2 November 2007, accessed 11 November 2022 South West Water v ICL BLR 420 and Horace Holman Group Ltd v Sherwood International Group Ltd. (2000) (Unrep, 12 April 2000).

Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977

Bron en licentie