Unfair Terms in a Standard Form Contract
As a business owner, you probably enter into contracts every day. Contracts are crucial as they document and govern the relationship between your business and various parties. It is common to offer the parties you interact with the same or similar contracts. These are examples of a standard form contract.
.
While standard form contracts assist business efficiency, it is essential to take into account the terms of the contract and determine whether or not they are fair. This article explores unfair terms in standard form contracts, including how to identify and avoid them.
What is a Standard Form Contract?
Before considering unfair terms, it is important to first understand what constitutes a standard form contract. There is no statutory definition for a standard form contract. However, certain factors must be taken into consideration. Those factors include whether:
- one of the parties have all, or most of, the bargaining power in the transaction;
- one party prepared the contract before any discussion between the parties about the transaction occurred;
- the other party was required to either accept or reject the terms of the contract in the form in which they were presented;
- another party had the opportunity to negotiate the terms of the contract; and
- the terms of the contract take into account the circumstances of the transaction or other party.
A contract is considered to be standard form if:
- it is for the supply of goods, services, or land;
- one (or both) of the parties is a small business with fewer than 20 employees; and
- the contract price is not higher than $300,000 (or $1 million if the contract is for more than one year).
A standard form contract may not always be called standard form. It may also be known as a boilerplate contract, a contract of adhesion or even a take it or leave it contract. Despite the different names, it is the types of clauses that determine whether the contract is a standard form.
ACCC v JJ Richard & Sons Pty Ltd
For a long time, the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) has been clamping down on unfair contract terms imposed on consumers by bigger businesses. Recently, the Australian Consumer Law (ACL) has broadened that scope to include contracts involving small businesses.
In late 2017, the ACCC brought a case against JJ Richard & Sons Pty Ltd. They found some overly-strict terms in JJ Richard’s standard contract. Those terms gave the company the freedom to increase prices, change the scope of work and prohibit customers from ending the contract in certain circumstances. The ACCC argued that the standard contracts gave JJ Richard too much freedom and imposed too many restrictions on small businesses.
What is an Unfair Term?
Whether you are on the giving or receiving end of a contract, there are going to be strict clauses. They are strict to ensure that there is as much clarity as possible about the relationship, rights, obligations and expectations of the parties. However, these strict terms may, in some circumstances, be unfair. According to the ACCC, unfair contract terms will:
- let only one party avoid their obligations under the contract;
- allow only one party to end the contract;
- punish only one party for breaching any terms; and/or
- enable only one party to change the contract.
Ultimately, a contract will have unfair terms if it is overly restrictive on one party and provides the other with too many liberties. You should not impose unfair terms in standard form contracts onto other parties. Nor should you accept unfair terms. Courts will not accept clauses if they are unfair, place harsh obligations on the business or are otherwise unreasonable.
Key Takeaways
Contracts are an essential part of conducting business. It is vital to ensure that they contain terms and conditions that are fair to other parties. There is a delicate balance between protecting your business and taking advantage of other parties. The issue of unfair contract terms is one of which to be especially aware if your business is using standard form contracts. Therefore, it is best practice to have a lawyer look over your standard form contract to determine whether any of the terms are unfair or unreasonable.
Jessica Anderson
Senior Lawyer
legalvision.com.au
Latest Newsletters
Hot Issues
- Getting to a higher level of financial literacy in Australia
- What is the future of advice and how far off is superannuation 2.0?
- Investment and economic outlook, April 2024
- Australia’s debt service ratio ‘extraordinary’: CBA
- Connecting an adviser with your children
- ACCC scam report
- The Shortest-reigning Monarchs in History
- ATO warns trustees about increasing crypto scams
- Aged care report goes to the heart of Australia’s tax debate
- Removed super no longer protected from creditors: court
- ATO investigating 16.5k SMSFs over valuation compliance
- The 2025 Financial Year Tax & Super Changes You Need to Know!
- Investment and economic outlook, March 2024
- The compounding benefits from reinvesting dividends
- Three things to consider when switching your super
- Oldest Buildings in the World.
- Illegal access nets $637 million
- Trustee decisions are at their own discretion: expert
- Regular reviews and safekeeping of documents vital: expert
- Latest stats back up research into SMSF longevity and returns: educator
- Investment and economic outlook, February 2024
- Planning financially for a career break
- Could your SMSF do with more diversification?
- Countries producing the most solar power by gigawatt hours
- Labor tweaks stage 3 tax cuts to make room for ‘middle Australia’
- Quarterly reporting regime means communication now paramount: expert
- Plan now to take advantage of 5-year carry forward rule: expert
- Why investors are firmly focused on interest rates
- Super literacy low for cash-strapped
- Four timeless principles for investing success
- Investment and economic outlook, January 2024
Article archive
- January - March 2024
- October - December 2023
- July - September 2023
- April - June 2023
- January - March 2023
- October - December 2022
- July - September 2022
- April - June 2022
- January - March 2022
- October - December 2021
- July - September 2021
- April - June 2021
- January - March 2021
- October - December 2020
- July - September 2020
- April - June 2020
- January - March 2020
- October - December 2019
- July - September 2019
- April - June 2019
- January - March 2019
- October - December 2018
- July - September 2018
- April - June 2018
- January - March 2018
- October - December 2017
- July - September 2017
- April - June 2017
- January - March 2017
- October - December 2016
- July - September 2016
- April - June 2016
- January - March 2016
- October - December 2015
- July - September 2015
- April - June 2015
October - December 2023 archive
- Working after pension age
- Does the NALI/E punishment fit the crime?
- EPOA crucial for SMSFs, says professional adviser
- Economic and market outlook for 2024: Global summary
- Five investing tips for beginners
- Setting up the next generations of retirees
- A 2023 Advent Calendar for our clients
- Most Expensive Wars In History
- ATO takes hard line on in-house asset rules
- How to budget using the 50/30/20 method
- SMSFA says proposed super legislation will hit farmers, small businesses the most
- Investment and economic outlook, October 2023
- The benefits and risks of collectable super assets
- Teaching children about the value of money
- Most powerful countries throughout time.
- Retirement is not just about dollars
- Unfair Terms in a Standard Form Contract
- Too many businesses roll the dice on tax debt: Jordan
- Revised NALE rules ‘miss chance to clarify SMSF bugbear
- 6 simple rules will ensure a deed can be executed in all states
- Our investment and economic outlook, September 2023
- The benefits and risks of collectable super assets
- High deposit rates, but the case for equities is strong
- Most powerful LEADERS of All Time