Skip to main content
CLOSE

Charities

Close

Corporate and Commercial

Close

Employment and Immigration

Close

Environmental, Social, and Corporate Governance

Close

Fraud and Investigations

Close

Individuals

Close

Litigation

Close

Planning and Infrastructure

Close

Public Law

Close

Real Estate

Close

Restructuring and Insolvency

Close

Energy

Close

Entrepreneurs

Close

Private Wealth

Close

Real Estate

Close

Tech and Innovation

Close

Transport

Close

The recent case of Blu-Sky Solutions Limited v Be Caring Limited has provided a helpful reminder regarding the risks of trading on standard Terms and Conditions (STCs). STCs are commonly used in business contracts due to their simplicity of implementation and for reducing the risk of commercial negotiation.

However in this particular case, the STCs were found to have contained an onerous term which was subsequently held to be void and unenforceable. The T&Cs contained a clause which required Blu-Sky to pay a £225 administration charge (per phone) should Be Caring Limited cancel the order after it had been signed but before connection of the telecom services for the phones (800 phones had been ordered) Blu-Sky claimed it was owed £180,000 as a result.

The court held that it was Blu-Sky’s responsibility to bring the specific clause to Be Caring Limited’s attention because of its onerous nature. In this case the Judge held that the onerous clause was ‘cunningly concealed’ within a ‘dense thicket’ making it difficult for Be Caring Limited to extract and distinguish it as an important clause in comparison to the other clauses. Blu-Sky had made no attempt to illustrate the importance of this clause and the impact it would have. As such, the court held that the clause was not incorporated into the STCs.

Furthermore, the court also considered the clause in light of the test set out in Makdessi [2015] as to whether the clause amounted to a penalty. The court held that the clause was not in proportion to the Blu-Sky’s legitimate interest in the performance of the contract and its actual loss; as such, if the clause was considered to be incorporated, it would have been considered void as a penalty clause.

Whilst STCs are commonly incorporated within contracts, they are not without risk and therefore need to be carefully considered before signing. If a condition is likely to be considered onerous, it needs to be brought to the attention of the signer in a way that is deemed reasonable and fair.

Latest articles

Our Offices

London
One Bartholomew Close
London
EC1A 7BL

Cambridge
20 Station Road
Cambridge
CB1 2JD

Reading
The Anchorage, 34 Bridge Street
Reading RG1 2LU

Southampton
4 Grosvenor Square
Southampton SO15 2BE

 

Reading
The Anchorage, 34 Bridge Street
Reading RG1 2LU

Southampton
4 Grosvenor Square
Southampton SO15 2BE

  • Lexcel
  • CYBER ESSENTIALS PLUS

 

BDB Pitmans has launched Broadfield and is now part of the new transformative international law firm.

Should you need to confirm our bank details, please call +44 20 7092 6996.

© BDB Pitmans 2024. One Bartholomew Close, London EC1A 7BL - T +44 (0)345 222 9222

Our Services

Charities chevron
Corporate and Commercial chevron
Employment and Immigration chevron
Environmental, Social, and Corporate Governance chevron
Fraud and Investigations chevron
Individuals chevron
Litigation chevron
Planning and Infrastructure chevron
Public Law chevron
Real Estate chevron
Restructuring and Insolvency chevron

Sectors and Groups

Private Wealth chevron
Transport chevron