We use cookies to give you the best online experience. By using our website you agree to our use of cookies in accordance with our cookie policy. Learn more here.Close Me
The recent High Court case of Spreadex Limited v Colin Cochrane
[2012] (click here) is a stark reminder to online
traders, and indeed to other businesses, to exercise caution when
imposing liability on consumers in contracts.
The High Court held that a clause in the terms and conditions of
bookmaker Spreadex's website, pursuant to which the consumer
was deemed to have authorised all trade under his account without
limitation or exception, was not binding on the consumer. The
judge held that as the bookmaker had not given any consideration in
return for the consumer entering the terms and conditions, there
was no contract between the consumer and Spreadex. In any
event, the judge held that it was an unfair term under the Unfair
Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999. For more
details
click here.
The High Court held that a clause in the terms and conditions of
bookmaker Spreadex's website, pursuant to which the consumer
was deemed to have authorised all trade under his account without
limitation or exception, was not binding on the consumer.
This article was written for Law-Now, CMS Cameron
McKenna's free online information service. To register for
Law-Now, please go to www.law-now.com/law-now/mondaq
Law-Now information is for general purposes and guidance
only. The information and opinions expressed in all Law-Now
articles are not necessarily comprehensive and do not purport to
give professional or legal advice. All Law-Now information relates
to circumstances prevailing at the date of its original publication
and may not have been updated to reflect subsequent
developments.
The original publication date for this article was
20/06/2012.
To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.
Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.
Business Owners often ask whether a contract that their company is entering into can in fact take effect from an earlier date compared to the date on which it is to be signed by the parties.
The new Companies House registration regime seeks to modernise and streamline the charge registration process and a new, optional, online registration system has been introduced.
The recent case of Petroleo Brasiliero v E.N.E. Kos 1 Limited is a timely example of how the historical principles of bailment remain highly relevant today and how the law on bailment is still developing.
The attitude of the courts is shifting in favour of extending the occasions when liquidated damages clauses in business to business contracts are upheld.
After three years of consultation, new Companies House registration requirements have now come into force and apply to charges created on or after 6 April 2013 by companies and limited liability partnerships registered in England and Wales.
Some comments from our readers… “The articles are extremely timely and highly applicable” “I often find critical information not available elsewhere” “As in-house counsel, Mondaq’s service is of great value”
