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.

What the 2025 Grocery Supply Code means for suppliers

Big changes to the Grocery Supply Code take effect on 1 May — and if you supply groceries to one of New Zealand’s regulated retailers, it’s worth knowing what’s new. The 2025 Code has been designed with suppliers in mind. It strengthens existing protections in several important areas and adds new ones. Here’s a plain-language breakdown.
Aerial view of a cargo ship docked at a port. The ship is loaded with multicolored shipping containers. Three large green cranes are positioned alongside the ship, with their shadows cast on the deck and water. The port area has rows of containers.

Supreme Court of New South Wales finds force majeure clause offered no protection for loss and damage to goods in transit

In Woolworths Group Ltd v Twentieth Super Pace Nominees Pty Ltd [2021] NSWSC 344, the Supreme Court of New South Wales applied a narrow interpretation to the meaning and effect of a force majeure clause, finding that it did not override other clauses in the contract, or alter the overall allocation of risk intended by the parties.
A red cable car is pictured traveling uphill in an urban area with a lush green field, city buildings, and mountains in the background. The scene is bright and clear under a blue sky, resembling the clarity often sought in discussions about reduction of damages for contributory negligence.

Leaky Home Case: Failure to obtain a building report results in reduction of damages for contributory negligence

Apportionment for contributory negligence allows a court to share the responsibility between parties in circumstances where the test for causation and remoteness of damage justifies it. It doesn’t mean a respondent will not be held liable for negligence, but it can affect the amount of damages awarded to a claimant, as Roberts v Jules Consultancy Limited (in liq) [2021] NZCA 303 has shown.

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.