The Court found that the contract terms were unfair as they: The Federal Court declared that a number of provisions in the ByteCard consumer contract were unfair and therefore void and ineffective. Standard form contracts are contracts where the terms and conditions are set by only one of the parties to the contract, and the other party has no ability to negotiate more favourable terms. Section 23 of the ACL outlines that the terms of a contract for the supply of goods or services to a person will be void if the terms are unfair and the contract is a standard form contract. The ACCC instigated proceedings against the company alleging that a number of provisions in its standard form consumer contract were unfair and prohibited by the Australian Consumer Law (ACL). The ACCC illustrated its enforcement-based approach in its recent action against ByteCard Pty Limited (ByteCard), an internet service provider. The transition from a compliance-based focus to an enforcement-based approach has been in action since the March 2013 ACCC report on unfair contract terms, where the ACCC set out a number of problematic commonly used terms that it would focus on as a priority this year. The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) and Federal Court have recently demonstrated that they will take a strong stance against businesses that use unfair terms in their standard form consumer contracts. ACCC and Federal Court crack down on unfair contract terms 06 August 2013Ĭompetition and consumer law, Compliance and corporate governance
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |