Useful guidance on the incorporation of onerous terms and conditions into a contract has been provided by HHJ Davies’ judgment in the recent case of Blu-Sky Solutions Ltd v Be Caring Ltd [2021] EWHC 2619 (Comm).
Useful guidance on the incorporation of onerous terms and conditions into a contract has been provided by HHJ Davies’ judgment in the recent case of Blu-Sky Solutions Ltd v Be Caring Ltd [2021] EWHC 2619 (Comm), which concerns a claim for cancellation fees of £180,000 plus VAT for a mobile phone contract terminated by the defendant before the claimant had even begun to perform it.
Whilst HHJ Davies makes clear that his judgment is based on the facts of the case, there are many useful lessons contracting parties can take from his decision, particularly those who use a standalone terms and conditions (T&Cs) document (whether physical or online).
This article sets out the legal position on the incorporation of both standard and onerous T&Cs into a contract before exploring HHJ Davies’ conclusion that the claimant’s onerous T&Cs had not been successfully incorporated. Key take-aways for contracting parties appear in the conclusion.
It is commonly accepted that where a party’s T&Cs are not contained in the contract document that is to be signed by the accepting party, they are only incorporated into the contract if they are brought sufficiently to the attention of the accepting party.
In respect of onerous T&Cs the incorporation threshold is elevated. Particularly onerous or unusual terms will only be incorporated into the contract if they have been fairly and reasonably brought to the accepting party’s attention. Otherwise, irrespective of whether the standard T&Cs have been successfully incorporated, onerous terms will not.
Determination of how onerous a clause is can never be an exact science. The following are examples of clauses that the Courts have held to be onerous:
It is now common – approaching universal - for T&Cs to be located on a party’s website. Generally, if the contractual document refers to that website, the T&Cs will be successfully incorporated. In Blu-Sky HHJ Davies found it determinative that:
HHJ Davies’ view, therefore, was that the “defendant, had it accessed and had a reasonably quick look” at the applicable T&Cs “would have had no reason to think that they were not indeed applicable”.
In determining that the contested clauses were indeed onerous, HHJ Davies said that “there is a sliding scale - the more outlandish the clause the greater the notice which the other party, if he is to be bound, must in all fairness be given”. He drew a clear distinction between contracts in which the T&Cs are enclosed and contracts in which they stand alone. In respect of the former, the principle remains that only in extreme cases will the Courts depart from the usual principle that a party that signs a document is bound by its terms. However, in respect of the latter, that principle is not applicable and specific notice of any onerous terms is required for their incorporation.
The judge went on to explain that when deciding upon the incorporation of onerous terms, the weight given to the fact that the accepting party signed the contract “is likely to be very strong if there is a short form signed contract which refers to the term itself, and likely to be relatively weak if the order form is signed but the term is "buried away" in detailed T&Cs…which are neither found in the signed contract nor provided with the signed contract.”
HHJ Davies considered that the onerous terms had not been fairly and reasonably incorporated because:
The claimant sought to argue that as the contested clauses were widespread in contracts across the mobile phone industry, they were neither unusual or onerous and were therefore immune from the elevated incorporation threshold. The judge disagreed, deciding that “the fact that such clauses are not unusual does not of itself mean that they are not onerous”.
Blu-Sky serves as a critical reminder to commercial enterprises that the Courts will not look favourably upon parties that seek to bury onerous clauses within discrete T&Cs. Consequently, contracting parties must do their upmost to bring such clauses to the counter-party’s attention, despite the risk of the agreement falling through.
HHJ Davies’ judgment provides helpful guidance on the measures that enterprises should adopt to increase the likelihood of both standard and onerous T&Cs being incorporated into the contract. The key message is one of transparency. Contracting parties are expected to be upfront about the extent of the liabilities imposed by their T&Cs, particularly those that use T&Cs that are separate to the contract. Whilst there is no fool-proof guide to ensuring onerous terms are incorporated, steps such as highlighting and explaining them in pre-signing communication; underlining and emboldening the text of them in the T&Cs or, better still, referencing them expressly in the actual signing document, will all substantially help ensure that onerous terms are incorporated. Perhaps most effective of all would be to always enclose the T&Cs with the contract itself.
In the ongoing complex litigation between Optis Cellular Technology LLC and Apple Inc., the Court of Appeal ([2022] EWCA Civ 1411) has upheld the High Court’s findings that implementers of standard-essential patents (SEPs) cannot refuse to accept a FRAND license and continue activities in the meantime which constitute infringement: that party must commit to accept a court-determined license if it wishes to avoid an injunction.
The Court of Appeal has dismissed two cases regarding rent arrears accrued during the Covid lockdowns. The cases are London Trocadero (2015) LLP v Picturehouse Cinemas Ltd and Bank of New York Mellon (International) Ltd v Cine-UK Ltd.
Useful guidance on the incorporation of onerous terms and conditions into a contract has been provided by HHJ Davies’ judgment in the recent case of Blu-Sky Solutions Ltd v Be Caring Ltd [2021] EWHC 2619 (Comm).
The ‘new normal’ has brought with it a variety of different challenges and it has had an impact on nearly all facets of our lives, including the termination of contracts during these Covid-19 times.
Although the UK’s departure from the EU means that the EU REACH regulation no longer applies, UK REACH has stepped in to fill the gap, and UK-based companies exporting to the EU are now facing two chemicals regulation frameworks to deal with when before there was just one. Is your company ready for the challenge?
Two recent judgments demonstrate the risk that directors (of insolvent companies) face of being personally liable if appropriate records and procedures are not followed and if it cannot be shown that certain payments were in the interests of the company.
On 2 September HMRC announced a change in its policy on the VAT treatment of compensation and damages payments in the context of early contract termination.
Two cases have considered the issue of Covid 19 as part of the sentencing exercise. In the most recent, failures by a principal contractor Modus Workspace, who design and refit refurbishments, led to a £1.1 million fine after an engineer was injured from a fall from a roof.
Since the outbreak of the Covid-19 pandemic, the spotlight has increasingly been on force majeure and termination clauses in contracts.
Ruby O'Hara gives us an insight of her role in the Commercial Disputes Resolution team.
The High Court has rejected the judicial review claim brought by the campaign group BackTo60 against the Department of Work and Pensions (DWP).
Following a dispute over a right of way, the parties’ solicitors agreed in an exchange of emails (constituting a single email chain) to compromise the dispute by the defendant (R) transferring to the claimants (N) a small piece of land adjacent to Lake Windermere.
Issues about prescriptive rights of way and drainage arose on the redevelopment of dominant land.
The Hiscox Cyber Readiness report, a review of 3300 organisations, will be a stark warning for CEO’s of SME’s in the UK and in Europe.
National law firm Browne Jacobson has announced the promotion of nine lawyers to partner and legal director positions across its offices in Birmingham, London, and Nottingham.