Unfair terms in consumer contracts – important changes to the Fair Trading Act 1986

A 2018 Ministry of Business, Innovation & Employment (MBIE) survey of small businesses found that 45 per cent of participants considered that they had been offered unfair contract terms in the last year, and 47 per cent considered that they had otherwise been treated unfairly.[1]
A woman with curly hair and glasses, dressed in a turquoise top, holds folders against her chest with one hand while resting her other arm on her forehead. She stands in front of a plain off-white wall, appearing tired or stressed.

Despite the existing protections under the Commerce Act 1986, Fair Trading Act 1986, Consumer Guarantees Act 1993, and the Credit Contracts and Consumer Finance Act 2003, the Government considered that unfair practices were occurring due to gaps in the current framework, for example: 

  • Unfair contract terms: MBIE noted problems with unfair contract terms were likely to be concentrated in standard form contracts where one of the parties is small. 
  • Unfair conduct: the MBIE survey noted that much of the unfair conduct reported in the survey was already prohibited to some extent, or subject to common law remedies which suggests that businesses are not complying with the law and/or the threshold for prohibited conduct under the law is higher than the threshold that some businesses feel is unfair. 
A bustling farmers' market with shoppers selecting fresh produce from vendor tables. The tables are filled with vibrant vegetables like radishes, greens, and carrots. A canopy provides shade, and the city's tall buildings are visible in the background. Important changes to the Fair Trading Act 1986 ensure fair treatment for all shoppers.

The Fair Trading Amendment Bill (Bill) has passed its third reading. Once it receives the Royal Assent later this month, the Bill will amend the Fair Trading Act 1986 to: 

  • Extend the principal Act’s protections against unfair contract terms in standard form consumer contracts to include small trade contracts; and 
  • Prohibit unconscionable conduct in trade. 

The Bill also tightens rules around uninvited sellers on residential premises. 

These are significant changes to the law on business conduct. 

Businesses have 12 months before these changes come into force. Businesses should: 

  • Review all their standard form business contracts and ensure any contract terms which may be deemed unfair are removed in advance of August 2022; and 
  • Review business conduct and ensure that all staff are aware that the law will now specifically prohibit engaging in conduct that could be seen as acting in bad faith, exerting undue pressure or taking unfair advantage of a superior commercial or bargaining position. 
A laptop sits on a light blue surface next to a small shopping cart model and a stack of US dollar bills secured with a blue money clip, highlighting the importance of avoiding unfair contract terms in online shopping or e-commerce scenarios.

References

[1] Protecting businesses and consumers from unfair commercial practices, Discussion paper, Ministry of Business, Innovation and Enterprise, December 2018, p. 6.

Other resources you might like

If you found this article helpful and are interested in learning more, there is a wealth of other resources available on our website. We have a wide array of articles and guides on a variety of topics, each designed to provide you with a deeper understanding of the subject matter. We encourage you to explore these resources and deepen your knowledge.

Australian Hague Rules: party to shipping dispute rails against arbitration clause

In Carmichael Rail Network Pty Ltd v BBC Chartering Carriers GmbH & Co KG, [1] the High Court of Australia assessed whether engagement in arbitration in a foreign jurisdiction could contravene law designed to protect cargo owners. The decision is an illustration of the stability of arbitration as a method of dispute resolution.
A person wearing blue jeans and a white shirt holds several coins in their right hand, with their left pocket turned inside out, against a plain background.

Where do directors’ duties lie once insolvency looms?

Hong Kong Court refuses to set aside arbitral award over claim lawyer couldn’t read witness’ body language in virtual hearing.

In BTI 2014 LLC v. Sequana S.A. [2022] UKSC 25, the UK Supreme Court handed down its judgment which examined the role of directors when a company becomes, or is likely to become, insolvent. The decision looked at when directors were to consider the overriding interests of the company’s creditors when dealing with insolvency.
Aerial view of a suburban neighborhood featuring houses with yards, driveways, and cars parked on paved driveways. The street is lined with tall trees casting long shadows, and the homes have varied roof colors and styles, with greenery surrounding them.

Expert “evidence” needs to be more than just bald assertions to win the day

Leakage issues in a building can be a real dampener. A recent decision of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal (the Tribunal) which considered conflicting expert evidence on water ingress issues in a newly built property highlighted the importance of having sufficient and specific expert evidence to support the denial of a claim. It also emphasised the essential role this plays in the outcome of a matter.

Get in touch

Contact our team today to see how we can help

Contact us

This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.