Your Guide to Terms & Conditions

Services Online

Goods Online

If you manage a type of retail or goods-based business, necessary terms and conditions would include your refund and return policy. Ideally this would set out in very clear terms what the customer should expect in the event that they sought a refund or wanted to return their items.

Your customer must be aware of your terms and conditions before purchase for them to be binding. It saves a lot of hassles and time down the track if your terms of trade are clear and easy to access. It is worthwhile noting here that some terms and conditions cannot override Australian consumer guarantees. Any attempt to limit the Australian Consumer Laws (ACL), is invalid. Consumer guarantees now apply to products and services with a value up to $100,000, regardless of who the purchaser is. 

We can help you navigate your obligations under Australian Consumer Law.

Interesting Recent Cases

Consider the 2019 case of Australian Competition Consumer Commission (ACCC) v Jetstar.

Jetstar tried to present their air fares in a way that excluded any right to a refund for the cheaper air fares. The ACCC commenced proceedings against Jetstar for false and misleading representations, as well as breaching the automatic consumer guarantees that cannot be excluded, restricted or modified, no matter how cheap the air fare was for the consumer.

The Federal Court ordered Jetstar to pay a financial penalty of $1.95 million for the breaches as well as an undertaking to commit to amend its policies and practices to ensure they are consistent with the ACL. This undertaking was court-enforceable if they did not comply.

Another recent case that illustrates the importance of having express terms and conditions is the case of Hardingham v RP Data. Hardingham was a real estate photographer who had an exclusive licence with his business ‘Real Estate Marketing Australia Pty Ltd’ (REMA) for the copyright of his works. He had an ongoing informal oral agreement between him and the various real estate agencies for the use of his photographs and floor plan images for the agencies marketing campaigns. He did not have any express terms and conditions in place between him and the various agencies.

These agencies would then upload his work to Realestate.com.au for the marketing campaigns. In order to proceed with the upload of the photographs, the agency (often a subscriber) would need to agree to the terms and conditions on the website as set out by Realesate.com.au. The terms and conditions on the Realestate.com.au website contained a sub-license to “other persons” in a detailed form.

Realestate.com.au then sub-licensed to RP Data who then published the photographs on its websites and superimposed a logo on the images. RP Data is a subscriber-only database of real estate sales and rental history. After an appeal to the Full Court of the Federal Court of Australia, the court held by 2:1 majority, that the sub-licence to RP Data who then used and manipulated the photographs and images was an infringement of copyright.

The court held that the original owner of the copyright did not agree to the sub-licence when it verbally agreed to the various real estate agencies uploading the images to Realestate.com.au.

We have assisted professional real estate photographers to prepare appropriate terms and conditions for the use of their images to ensure they are paid for use.

This case is a good example where the copyright owner might have avoided going through the expensive and lengthy court process, and the subsequent need to appeal, to receive a judgement in his favour, if he had express terms and conditions that explicitly set out the use of the photographs and images.

Since he had only oral agreements between him and the real estate agencies, the court had to determine if the implied terms were so obvious and were necessary to give business efficacy to the contract. Thankfully the Full Court found that there was such an implied term in this instance.

COVID-19 Impact on Terms and Conditions

Consider another recent case that relied on terms and conditions under a contract that was affected by COVID-19 shutdowns is the case of Dyco Hotels Pty Ltd v Laundry Hotels (Quarry) Pty Ltd. This case concerned the sale of the Quarryman Hotel in Pyrmont, New South Wales (NSW). The contract was signed on 31 January 2020, with the date of settlement set for 27 March 2020.

The contract price was for $11,250,000 and included the associated hotel licence, the gaming machine entitlements and the hotel business itself. The deposit paid by the buyers was $562,500.

In the sale contract, there was an Additional Clause 50.1 which imposed various obligations upon the vendor, including the obligation to continue to operate the business “in the usual and ordinary course as regards to its nature, scope and manner”.

On the 23 March 2020, 4 days before settlement, public health orders issued shutting down the majority of hospitality services. This made it unlawful for the hotel to continue to operate, except for takeaway food and drinks, in accordance with the public health directions.

The buyers argued that the business sale was frustrated by the public health orders since the hotel was no longer able to operate in the “usual and ordinary course as regards to its nature, scope and manner”. They asked for return of the $562,500 deposit and claimed the value of the assets decreased by $1 million due to the public health orders.

The vendor disagreed.

The vendor’s position was that the hotel continued to trade as a going concern within the confines of the health orders and in accordance with the legal restrictions that had been imposed upon it. If the vendor had operated contrary to the public health orders, it would have placed the future operation of the business in jeopardy, including the hotel licence to operate. This would have damaged the goodwill of the hotel. The vendor also argued that they were entitled to terminate the contract, retain the deposit and seek damages for the loss of the bargain.

The NSW Supreme Court found in the vendor’s favour and held that the contract was not frustrated by COVID-19 public health orders. The vendor was entitled to keep the $562,500 deposit and recover damages as well for the loss of bargain. The court assessed the damages to be $900,000 and deducted the deposit of $562,500 from that amount.

Although the terms and conditions in this case were not online but contained in sale documents, it does demonstrate that carefully considered terms and conditions can make a big difference to the outcome of a dispute. 

The purchasers might have been better protected if there were any contractual warranties given by the vendor about the future financial performance of the hotel. Since there were no warranties given, the purchasers accepted the risks.  The purchasers were experienced in the Sydney hotel operations business and understood the various potential risks of legislative changes, despite not being familiar with the impact of a pandemic.

This is a good illustration of the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on terms and conditions and contemplation of the risks associated with business operations. Following the lessons in this case, a vendor would be wise to include business conduct obligations under the contract that can be altered or changed to comply with public health emergencies. A buyer would be wise to include options to terminate the contract in the event where the value of the business has dramatically dropped due to unexpected circumstances.

Another COVID-19 impact on the operation of businesses can be seen in the recent case of Flight Centre Travel Group Limited Trading as Aunt Betty v Goel. Terms and conditions were online and agreed to by click wrap agreement – where the buyer has to check a box stating they agree to terms and conditions before being able to complete the purchase.

In the first hearing, Goel had been awarded a refund on the basis that the purchased flights hadn’t been received.

On the 5 November 2019, the customer (Goel) had made a booking online, for the return flights from Sydney to Delhi scheduled for flights during April 2020. The $2,336.30 flights were with Malaysia Airlines which cancelled the flights during March 2020, when COVID-19 public health orders restricted international travel.

The terms and conditions stated that Flight Centre was only agent and not responsible for delivery. If that were the case, Malaysian Airlines would have been liable to provide the refund, not Flight Centre.

The case we are referring to was an appeal by Flight Centre where it argued that the business Aunt Betty operated as an agent, and not the supplier of the service and therefore was not liable for actions by the airline in cancelling the flight. It would have set a damaging precedent for Flight Centre to be liable to refund all booking costs where it had not received the bulk of those funds, which had been passed on to the suppliers (like Malaysian Airlines) pending delivery.

The tribunal, on appeal, held that Goel would have been aware at the time of booking that he had booked the flights with an agent and not the actual airline carrier itself. It is interesting to note that the court decided that the booking could not have been made without the positive acknowledgement of the terms and conditions on the website. The court also decided that there was no breach of the consumer laws by the agent, and it was not liable to provide the refund.

Conclusion

In order to operate your business successfully, you need to be mindful of the ever-changing landscape that both COVID-19 public health emergencies create, and the increasing demands shaped by conducting more business in the online space.

The pass of change suggests you have your terms and conditions of trade reviewed and updated more frequently, with consideration of all aspects of a transaction.

If you are contemplating signing any contracts for business sales or purchases, it would also be advisable to ensure you are covered in the event that COVID-19 emergency public health order impacts adversely on the contract price and business valuation or operational requirements.

The new year is also a good time to evaluate your privacy policies and disclaimers, as well.