“d by the Defendant under ss 13 and 14 of the SGA, were excluded by Clause 10(f), which disclaimed all express or implied warranties not contained in the Contract. This exclusion was unaffected by the Unfair Contract Terms Act (Cap 396, 1994 Rev Ed) as the Contract was an “international supply contract” within the meani”
“(e) Are the conditions of contract or any of them not available to Wartsila by reason of the Unfair Contract Terms Act (Cap 396, 1994 Rev Ed)?”
“The Arbitrator was also satisfied that this conclusion was unaffected by the Unfair Contract Terms Act (Cap 396, 1994 Rev Ed) (“UCTA”) because the Contract came within s 26(3)(b) read with s 26(4)(a) of the Act. Section 26 of the UCTA states that:”
“(f) that the aberrant value clause, if incorporated into the Agreement, would be contrary to the Unfair Contract Terms Act (Cap 396, 1994 Rev Ed). However, the Plaintiff’s counsel accepted that he could not rely on this for the purposes of the summary judgment application.”
“(b) Clause 10.1 of the Standard Terms and the exclusion clause in the LOI breached the Unfair Contract Terms Act (Cap 396, 1994 Rev Ed) (“the UCTA”) and were therefore ineffective.”
“(e) The CS T&Cs are subject to the Unfair Contract Terms Act (Cap 396, 1994 Rev Ed) (“UCTA”).”
“Contract] — [contractual terms] — [Unfair Contract Terms Act; Civil Procedure] — [defence of set-off; Civil Procedure] — [costs] — [offer to settle”
“ceability of the Exclusion Clause. I understood the plaintiff to be alluding to this in its arguments on prematurity above. In this relation, the Court of Appeal in CKR noted the applicability of the Unfair Contract Terms Act (Cap 396, 1994 Rev Ed) as well as other common law restrictions on clauses in the same nature”
“uses which Arup invokes. Millenia avers that, even if the limitation of liability and time-bar clauses which Arup invokes were incorporated into the 2004 and 2007 Appointment Letters, they breach the Unfair Contract Terms Act (Cap 396, 1994 Rev Ed) (“UCTA”) and thus Arup cannot rely on them.”
“As an aside, I note that the plaintiffs plead in their reply that cl 6(b) contravenes s 2(2) of the Unfair Contract Terms Act (Cap 396, 1994 Rev Ed). The plaintiffs have not pursued this point further in their closing submissions. I take it that the plaintiffs have abandoned this point.”
“(c) that clause (h) was contrary to section 3(2)(b)(i) of the Unfair Contract Terms Act (Cap 396, 1994 Rev Ed) (“UCTA”); and”
“Applicability of the Unfair Contract Terms Act”
“if the burden fell on the First Respondent instead (GD at [29]). The Judge also found that the circumstances surrounding Clause 14A(5) were not so unreasonable as to render it unenforceable under the Unfair Contract Terms Act (Cap 396, 1994 Rev Ed) (“the UCTA”) (GD at [35]–[36]).”
“In so far as DB relied on contract terms in its defence, the Plaintiffs relied on ss 2 and 3 of the Unfair Contract Terms Act (Cap 396, 1994 Rev Ed) (“UCTA”) and pleaded that any contract term that sought to, amongst other things, exclude or restrict DB’s liability for breach of contract or for negligence was unenforce”
“or its own wrongdoing such as to absolve the Defendant from all duties and liabilities under the Agreement, which would defeat its main purpose and would be unenforceable pursuant to the terms of the Unfair Contract Terms Act (Cap 396, 1994 Rev Ed) (“UCTA”). Finally, it submits that if the clause was effective to limit”
“m did not raise any objection on this point. She merely submitted that first, the plaintiff’s reliance on Note (a) had not been properly pleaded; second, the provision should be struck down under the Unfair Contract Terms Act (Cap 396, 1994 Rev Ed); and third, that in any event, the defendant’s notices were in complian”
“The defendant then applied for leave to serve a rejoinder, principally to advance two allegations: first, the clauses the plaintiff relied on were unenforceable under the Unfair Contract Terms Act (Cap 396, 1994 Rev Ed) (“the UCTA”); and second, the plaintiff’s reliance on these clauses constituted unfair practice unde”
“ws as a logical conclusion from the mere fact of equality of treatment of investors under contractual obligations. In some circumstances, a contract may, subject to the restrictions stipulated in the Unfair Contract Terms Act (Cap 396, 1994 Rev Ed), expressly exclude liability for negligence (see also Ng Giap Hon at [3”
“Contract] — [Discharge] — [Frustration; Contract] — [Contractual terms] — [Unfair Contract Terms Act”
“f care; Tort] — [Negligence] — [Breach of duty; Tort] — [Negligence] — [Causation; Tort] — [Negligence] — [Contributory negligence; Tort] — [Negligence] — [Damages; Contract] — [Contractual terms] — [Unfair Contract Terms Act] — [Sections 2(2) and 11(3)”
“form which investors would make use of in order to place crude oil orders with POA (through CAG). The exclusion clause in the reservation form, the respondents contend, meets the requirements of the Unfair Contract Terms Act (Cap 396, 1994 Rev Ed). This contention is a non-starter. First, the respondents have not expla”
“Tort — Negligence — Defences — Contributory Negligence; Tort — Vicarious liability; Contract — Contractual terms — Rules of construction][Contract — Contractual terms — Unfair Contract Terms Act][Contract — Contractual terms — Implied terms”
“ed but not executed”. Further, it was always the appellant’s case that it could bypass Article 12 because there was a continuing agreement and/or Article 12 was rendered unenforceable pursuant to the Unfair Contract Terms Act (Cap 396, 1994 Rev Ed) (“UCTA”). The respondent had also objected to the belated inclusion by”
“Civil Procedure — Costs — Indemnity costs; Contract — Breach; Contract — Contractual terms — Implied terms; Contract — Contractual terms — Unfair Contract Terms Act; Damages — Measure of damages — Contract; Tort — Negligence — Duty of care”
“addition, despite certain terms in the General T&Cs purportedly excluding the imposition of a duty of care, the defendant had yet to demonstrate that the plaintiff’s reliance on the provisions in the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977 (2020 Rev Ed) (“UCTA”) to dispute these terms would be bound to fail.”
“age used rendered an entire agreement clause, in substance, an exception clause, the clause “would be subject to both the relevant common law constraints on exclusion clauses as well as the UCTA [the Unfair Contract Terms Act (Cap 396, 1994 Rev Ed)]”.”
“In my judgment, Konica cannot rely on this clause because it is unreasonable and therefore ineffective under the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977 (Cap 396, 1994 Rev Ed) (“UCTA”). As a preliminary matter, it is clear that s 3 read with s 6(b) of the UCTA apply to the present case. First, s 1(3) of the UCTA provides that s”
“had raised a valid objection within the stipulated time; (b) the contra proferentum rule should be applied in construing Clause 2C narrowly in its favour; and (c) Clause 2C was unreasonable under the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977 (2020 Rev Ed) (the “UCTA”).”
“Insolvency Law — Winding up — Triable issue; Contract — Contractual discretion; Contract — Contractual terms — Unfair Contract Terms Act”
“ts are not reasonable in the context of an individual customer entering into an agreement with a financial institution. He also says that the defendants cannot rely on them as they are subject to the Unfair Contract Terms Act (Cap 396, 1994 Rev Ed) (the “UCTA”). He provides no explanation for how the UCTA operates to p”
“pondent for 19 years before his agency agreement was terminated in March 2022. In this action, he is suing the defendant for wrongful termination, unjust enrichment (“UE claim”) and a claim under the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977 (2020 Rev Ed) (“UCTA claim”). The defendant applied to strike out the claimant’s claim in”
“In any event, I consider that the disclaimer does not satisfy the requirement of reasonableness under the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977. Phoenix knew that the Buyer and the Seller would be relying on its reports for “benchmarking of key management roles”, and it was not reasonable of Phoenix to seek to exclude liabili”
“Contract — Contractual terms — Admissibility of Evidence; Contract — Contractual terms — Interpretation; Contract — Contractual terms — Incorporation by reference; Contract — Contractual terms — Unfair Contract Terms Act; Contract — Contractual terms — Implied term; Damages — Liquidated damages or penalty”
“pansive reading of Clause 9.6 is taken, this is at most a potential defence Phoenix could have argued, ie, that the Sale Contracts are subject to a limitation of liability (potentially subject to the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977 (2020 Rev Ed)). However, these arguments were not run as a defence by Phoenix. Instead, P”
“majeure clause; Contract — Contractual terms — Rules of construction — Whether force majeure event rendered compliance “impossible or impracticable”; Contract — Contractual terms — Sections 3 and 11 Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977 (2020 Rev Ed) — Whether test of reasonableness applies to contractual terms; Contract — Re”
“vision reproduced in paragraph [165] above, any term seeking to exclude liability for misrepresentation shall only have effect if it satisfies the requirement of “reasonableness” under s 11(1) of the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977 (2020 Rev Ed) (“UCTA”), which I also reproduce for ease of reference:”
“The plaintiffs’ solicitors argued in their closing submissions that cll 9(a) and 17 fall afoul of s 3 read with s 11 of the Unfair Contract Terms Act (Cap 396, 1994 Rev Ed) (“UCTA”). Their submissions on this point consisted of nothing more than this bald sentence. The plaintiffs have not shown that they dealt with the”
“Agency — Principal — Holding out; Contract — Contractual terms — Construction; Contract — Contractual terms — Unfair Contract Terms Act; Tort — Negligence — Duty of care; Tort — Negligence — Causation; Tort — Negligence — Contributory negligence; Tort — Vicarious liability”
“ation of Actions — Particular causes of action — Contract; Limitation of Actions — Particular causes of action — Tort; Contract — Contractual terms — Exclusion clauses; Contract — Contractual terms — Unfair Contract Terms Act; Tort — Negligence — Duty of care; Tort — Negligence — Breach of duty; Tort — Negligence — Cau”
“e validity of the non-representation clause merits fuller consideration given that it is subject to the requirement of reasonableness under s 3 of the Misrepresentation Act 1967 read with s 11 of the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977. Further, I am not persuaded that the matters raised by the Claimant would render the Def”
“Contract — Contractual terms — Construction; Contract — Contractual terms — Unfair Contract Terms Act; Tort — Negligence — Duty of care; Tort — Vicarious liability”
“Contract — Contractual terms — Implied term of good faith, mutual trust, confidence and goodwill; Contract — Contractual terms — Unfair Contract Terms Act; Contract — Contractual terms — Interpretation; Restitution — Unjust enrichment”