Rely on the most comprehensive, up-to-date legal content designed and curated by lawyers for lawyers
Work faster and smarter to improve your drafting productivity without increasing risk
Accelerate the creation and use of high quality and trusted legal documents and forms
Streamline how you manage your legal business with proven tools and processes
Manage risk and compliance in your organisation to reduce your risk profile
Stay up to date and informed with insights from our trusted experts, news and information sources
Access the best content in the industry, effortlessly — confident that your news is trustworthy and up to date.
Find up-to-date guidance on points of law and then easily pull up sources to support your advice with Lexis PSL
Check out our straightforward definitions of common legal terms.
Our trusted tax intelligence solutions, highly-regarded exam training and education materials help guide and tutor Tax professionals
Access our unrivalled global news content, business information and analytics solutions
Insurance, risk and compliance intelligence using big data, proprietary linking and advanced analytics.
A leading provider of software platforms for professional services firms
In-depth analysis, commentary and practical information to help you protect your business
LexisNexis Blogs shed light on topics affecting the legal profession and the issues you're facing
Legal professionals trust us to help navigate change. Find out how we help ensure they exceed expectations
Lex Chat is a LexisNexis current affairs podcast sharing insights on topics for the legal profession
Discuss the latest legal developments, ask questions, and share best practice with other LexisPSL subscribers
How the months come and go! It's April already. How did that happen*?
Anyhow, here's this month's top 5 commercial law developments taken from our March LexisPSL Commercial monthly round-up.
*As helpful as it may be, please refrain from writing to us here at Comet to explain how the calendar works. We are going to try to work it out for ourselves on this occasion. Thanks :-)
The Committee on Advertising Practice has published answers to FAQs that it provided to bloggers following the Advertising Standards Authority's publication of guidance on blogging in late 2013.
In summary, the ASA requires bloggers who are paid (directly or in kind) by a third-party to write reviews or comments about a product or service and who cede editorial control of the blog to that third party to be up-front with their followers by making clear that it is advertising.
Following that announcement, the ASA and CAP received a significant volume of queries from bloggers and brands asking for further information about the rules that are in place and how they can stick to them. These rules also apply to companies; so, any business or PR agency looking to promote products and services by entering into commercial relationships with bloggers should also be aware of them.
The guidance makes clear that bloggers and brands should also be mindful of fair trading laws under which companies are required to disclose* commercial relationships beyond what is required under the The UK Code of Non-broadcast Advertising, Sales Promotion and Direct Marketing (CAP Code).
As well as the guidance on blogging, CAP has also issued guidance on comparing prices with your competitors, which highlights the rules 3.33 to 3.40 in the CAP Code. The guidance provides links to further guidance on lowest price claims and on retailer's price comparisons.
* Don't forget that the OFT closed yesterday. See our blog post for details of who is now responsible for what.
The Financial Conduct Authority has issued detailed rules for consumer credit firms.
The FCA took over the regulation of around 50,000 consumer credit firms from the Office of Fair Trading on 1 April 2014. The final rules carry across many standards from the Consumer Credit Act 1974 (CCA) and the OFT guidance, and contain higher standards for payday and other high-cost short-term lenders and for debt management firms. Firms with an OFT licence wishing to continue carrying out consumer credit activities should have registered with the FCA for interim permission by 31 March 2014.
The rules follow the FCA's October 2013 consultation paper outlining its proposals. Around 300 responses were received, along with feedback from road shows held around the UK. Those who responded generally welcomed the FCA’s approach to regulating consumer credit, and the proposals have not been significantly changed. These included setting higher standards for high-cost short-term credit, including payday lending, and debt management firms.
The new rules also change how payday lenders and debt management companies treat their customers including mandatory affordability checks for payday borrowers and giving the FCA the power to ban any misleading adverts from payday lenders.
The rules will affect:
The biggest changes come for payday lenders and debt management companies, including:
Consumer credit providers will need to ensure that they give customers the right information to make informed choices, that their services meet consumer needs, and that people in difficulty are treated fairly. The FCA has also confirmed the following approach:
Most of the rules came into force on 1 April 2014. Others will commence on 1 July and 1 October 2014, 1 April 2015 and 1 April 2017.
In the case of Durkin v DSG Retail Limited and another  UKSC 21, the customer, Richard Durkin, visited a PC world store in December 1998 to purchase a laptop computer, making it clear that he needed one with an internal modem. A sales assistant identified a laptop but told Mr Durkin that he wasn’t sure whether it had an internal modem. He agreed that Mr Durkin could return the computer if it didn’t. Accordingly, Mr Durkin paid a deposit of £50 and signed a consumer credit agreement with HFC Bank plc for the remaining £1,449 of the purchase price. When Mr Durkin returned home he noticed that the computer did not have a modem. He returned it to the store, asked for his deposit back and that the credit agreement be cancelled. The deposit was eventually returned although no monies were ever paid to HFC Bank plc under the credit agreement who nonetheless pursued him for payments and placed entries on credit registers preventing him from opening accounts with other lenders.
At first instance Mr Durkin was awarded £8,000 for injury to credit, £6,880 for additional interest that he had to pay, and £101,794 for the loss in respect of certain property.
On appeal to the Supreme Court it was held that Mr Durkin was entitled to rescind the credit agreement and validly did so by giving notice to HFC in about February 1999. The court also found that the law will imply a term into this type of credit agreement that it is conditional upon the survival of the supply agreement that it financed (eg in this case: the agreement for the purchase of the laptop). Accordingly, the debtor, on rejecting the goods and thereby rescinding the supply agreement for breach of contract, may also rescind the credit agreement by invoking this condition. The fact that HFC Bank plc knew of Mr Durkin’s assertion that the credit agreement had been rescinded, placed it was under a delictual duty (in Scottish law) to investigate that assertion in order reasonably to satisfy itself that the credit agreement remained enforceable before reporting to the credit reference agencies that he was in default. Although a breach of duty was established and the award of £8,000 for damage to credit was upheld, the court rejected the attempt to restore the first instance award of damages for extra interest and loss of property. Not the sum of money Mr Durkin expected but consumers should take heart.
The Court of Appeal has considered the question of whether it was possible to exercise a common law possessory lien over an electronic database in Your Response Ltd v Datateam Business Media Ltd  All ER (D) 156 (Mar)  EWCA Civ 281.
The claimant refused to return an electronic database to the defendant publisher until outstanding fees were paid and issued proceedings against the defendant for breach of contract.
The first instance judge held that the claimant was entitled to withhold the data and the defendant appealed.
The Court of Appeal effectively decided that you cannot have a common law lien over a database, and that the database service provider may not withhold access to the database until they receive payment for their fees, although this can be dealt with in the contract. The court also considered a question about the reasonableness of a three month notice period, and rejected the appeal on that point, holding that the notice period was reasonable.
The Court of Appeal has confirmed in Swallowfalls v Monaco Yachting & Technologies SAM  EWCA Civ 186 that a provision in a loan agreement which allowed the lender to give the borrower notice that the loan was immediately due and repayable should be construed as meaning that the loan was repayable on demand.
The court noted that: 'If a clause is to be repaid "on the first to occur of" a number of events (i) to (v) and one of those events is "the date on which the Lender gives the Borrower notice that the Loan is immediately due and payable", the natural construction of the words is that, once such notice is given, the loan is to be repaid.'
The court rejected the appellant's arguments that interpreting the relevant clause in this way rendered the other parts of the clause (eg that the loan was also repayable on the occurrence of an event of default) of no practical purpose
So that's it folks. Same time, same place next month?
If you have any burning thoughts in the meantime on the above developments, let us know below. Equally, if you have a spare minute, why not enter your name and email address in the box on the right hand side of this page? If you do so, you will receive all of the developments highlighted in our monthly round-up for free along with other exclusive content courtesy of our new Comet newsletter.
Free trials are only available to individuals based in the UK
* denotes a required field
0330 161 1234