This website uses cookies to ensure you get the best experience on our website. Learn more

Law Notes Contract Law Notes

Control Of Terms Consumer Rights Act Notes

Updated Control Of Terms Consumer Rights Act Notes

Contract Law Notes

Contract Law

Approximately 108 pages

In depth revision notes with lecturer and academic commentary as well as textbook summaries. Colorful and highlighted with illustrative pictures and diagrams. Visually attractive. ...

The following is a more accessible plain text extract of the PDF sample above, taken from our Contract Law Notes. Due to the challenges of extracting text from PDFs, it will have odd formatting:

THE CONSUMER RIGHTS ACT 2015

The Consumer Rights Act 2015 (CRA) attempts to streamline and consolidate a number of pieces of consumer legislation in the one place. For the purposes of this lecture, we will focus on Part 2 CRA which relates to:

  • The control of unfair terms in consumer contracts and which replace the (now revoked) UTCCR 1999.

  • Exclusion and limitation clauses in B2C contracts used to be controlled by UCTA 1977, but these are now dealt with by the CRA 2015 as part of its control of unfair terms (although see s65), leaving UCTA to control purely B2B transactions.

The European Heritage of Part 2 of the CRA.

Both the UTCCR and the CRA are the direct result of the UK’s membership of the EU. In 1993, the EU passed legislation to protect consumers from unfair terms in contracts – the EU Directive on Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts.1 The UTCCR 1999 and now the CRA Part 2 is the UK legislation that implemented this EU Directive.

  • Implementation of an EU directive.

The Directive was copied verbatim and no attempt was made to adapt the language of domestic legislation into more familiar common law concepts. The European source of the CRA (and previously the UTCCR) has meant some terminological and interpretational difficulty for the common law. For example, ‘foreign’ concepts such as ‘good faith’ that can be found in the fairness test of the Directive (and now implemented in s62(4) of the CRA 2015 – see below) have proved difficult to interpret.

“The Regulations give effect to Council Directive 93/13/EEC on unfair terms in consumer contracts, and these rather opaque provisions are lifted word for word from articles 3 and 4 of the Directive”. Cavendish Square Holding BV v Makdessi; ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67, [105] per Lord Neuberger.

Finally, this European heritage of the UTCCR (and now Part 2 of the CRA) explains why judgments of the European Court have played an important role in interpretation of the provisions of the UTCCR and will continue to do so with the CRA.

PERSONAL SCOPE OF THE CRA 2015

Only applies to B2C transactions NOT B2B transactions. This means that if the protections of the Act

are to apply, it will be crucial to determine the personal scope of the transaction (is it B2B or B2C?).

Definition of “Trader’

Section 2(1)

“Trader” means a person acting for purposes relating to that person’s trade, business, craft or profession, whether acting personally or through another person acting in the trader’s name or on the trader’s behalf.

Definition of ‘Consumer’

Section 2(3)

“Consumer” means an individual acting for purposes that are wholly or mainly outside that individual’s trade, business, craft or profession.

Note: the notion of ‘wholly or mainly’ outside individual’s trade or business:

  • Leaves room for debate.

CRA Explanatory Guidelines para 36

“… a person who buys a kettle for their home, works from home one day a week and uses it on the days when working from home would still be a consumer. Conversely a sole trader that operates from a private dwelling who buys a printer of which 95% of the use is for the purposes of the business, is not likely to be held to be a consumer (and therefore the rights in this Part will not protect that sole trader but they would have to look to other legislation. For example, if the sole trader were buying goods, they would have to look to theSGAfor protections about the quality of the goods).”

Section 2(4)

A trader claiming that an individual was not acting for purposes wholly or mainly outside the individual’s trade, business, craft or profession must prove it’.

‘BLACKLISTED’ TERMS WITHIN THE CRA 2015

Section 65

(1) A trader cannot by a term of a consumer contract or by a consumer notice exclude or restrict liability for death or personal injury resulting from negligence.

[see s2(1) of UCTA but in the context of B2B transactions]

Section 31 CRA

(1) A term of a contract to supply goods is not binding on the consumer to the extent that it would exclude or restrict the trader’s liability arising under any of these provisions—

(a) section 9 (goods to be of satisfactory quality);

(b) section 10 (goods to be fit for particular purpose);

(c) section 11 (goods to be as described);

[See also sections 47 and 57 CRA for similar unenforceable terms in respect of contracts for digital content and services ]

REVIEW OF UNFAIRNESS:

Section 62 CRA and the ‘fairness test’:

(1) An unfair term of a consumer contract is not binding on the consumer. [See further discussion on s62(1) below].

(4)“ A term is unfair if, contrary to the requirement of good faith, it causes a significant imbalance in the parties' rights and obligations under the contract to the detriment of the consumer.

‘Good faith’ and ‘significant imbalance’: both of these concepts (directly copied from the EU Directive) seem at first unfamiliar to the common law and there has been much debate about the correct interpretation of the fairness test.

**DG of Fair Trading v First National Bank Plc [2002] 1 ALL ER 97 (House of Lords)

The House of Lords was concerned with the interpretation of Reg 3 of the 1995 Unfair Terms in Consumer Contract Regulations which are identical in wording to Reg 6 of the 1999 Regulations. The House of Lords were determining the question of whether a clause, providing that interest at the contractually agreed price, was payable after a judgment, came within the ambit of Regulation 3 of the 1995 Regulations. It was held that this did not represent a core term under the Regulations notwithstanding the fact that it was an agreed term representing the price of remuneration.

Lord Steyn:

"In any event, article 3(2) must be given a restrictive interpretation. Unless that is done article 3(2)(a) will enable the main purpose of the scheme to be frustrated by endless formalistic arguments as to whether a provision is a definitional or an exclusionary provision. Similarly, article 3(2)(b) dealing with "the adequacy of the price of...

Buy the full version of these notes or essay plans and more in our Contract Law Notes.