Fair Trading Amendment Bill receives Royal Assent

A wooden gavel rests on a sounding block in the foreground. In the background, two individuals are shaking hands across a table. Legal documents and a pen are also visible on the table.

As we noted in our 12 August 2021 alert on amendments to the Fair Trading Act introduced by the Fair Trading Amendment Bill, significant changes are made on the application of the unfair contract terms regime to business to business or small trade contracts. The Bill received Royal Assent on 16 August 2021 and is now the Fair Trading Amendment Act 2021 (Amendment Act).

Some of the changes made by the Amendment Act are now in force. Of particular note are:

  • Extended warranties: Businesses that make extended warranty agreements with customers over the telephone must provide a copy of the agreement to the customer within five working days of the date it is agreed. Customers can cancel an extended warranty agreement within five working days of receiving the agreement.
  • Management banning orders: The Amendment Act extends the set of circumstances where directors or managers may be subject to a management banning order.

The extension under the Amendment Act of the unfair contract terms regime to include small trade contracts and prohibitions on unconscionable conduct to include parties engaged in trade, as well as changes to uninvited direct sales, comes into force on 16 August 2022.

What is a “small trade contract”?

Under the Amendment Act, a small trade contract is a standard form contract where the parties are engaged in trade; is not a consumer contract; and does not comprise or form part of a trading relationship that exceeds an annual $250,000 value threshold when the relationship first arises.

How is an unfair contract term determined?

A term will be considered “unfair” where the term (cumulatively):

  • would cause a significant imbalance in the parties’ rights and obligations arising under the contract;
  • would cause detriment(whether financial or otherwise) to a party if it were applied, enforced, or relied on – current case law is that this is a low threshold; and
  • is not reasonably necessary in order to protect the legitimate interest of the party who would be advantaged by the term.

Businesses should use this time to understand their new obligations and align their current practices if they are not already doing so.

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.

General

.nz Dispute Resolution Scheme – Annual Report release 

Learn more
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.
General

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.
Learn more
A person wearing a face mask is sitting in a dark room, illuminated by their laptop screen. Their hands are typing on the keyboard, perhaps drafting contracts or seeking insight from overseas courts during the pandemics lockdowns.
General

Pandemics, lockdowns and contracts – can overseas courts give us any insight?

When the COVID-19 pandemic first arrived in New Zealand, there was widespread discussion amongst the legal community about the impact the pandemic and the Government “lockdowns” might have on contracts.[1] Two main avenues for obtaining contractual relief were explored: the doctrine of frustration, and force majeure clauses.

With the recent move into a Level 4 lockdown, it’s timely for us to revisit our thinking on this. Have the courts been able to fill in some of the gaps we had in our understanding of how COVID-19 might affect contracts? Interestingly, there has been little comment from the courts on these matters – perhaps parties have reached settlement, or perhaps the disputes are still making their way through the backlogged courts. However, we do have two cases to consider: one from Ireland, and one from Wales.
Learn more

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.