Legal News

The UCTA argument—falling short of the standard

The UCTA argument—falling short of the standard
Published on: 01 March 2016
Published by: LexisPSL
  • The UCTA argument—falling short of the standard
  • Original news
  • The facts of the case
  • How did the defendants use UCTA 1977 to argue that the ‘no set-off’ provisions were ineffective?
  • What was the judge’s ruling on the UCTA 1977 defence?
  • Could the LMA or other industry standard forms ever constitute a party’s ‘written terms of business’?
  • The ‘ineffective acceleration notice’ defence
  • What was the judge’s ruling on the ‘ineffective acceleration notice’ defence?
  • What are the practical implications of this case?

Article summary

Banking & Finance analysis: The summary judgment hearing in African Export-Import Bank v Shebah Exploration raised the interesting question of whether there are circumstances in which ‘neutral’ industry standard documents can constitute a contractual party’s standard terms of business within the meaning of section 3 of the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977 (UCTA 1977). If so, this could have implications for the effectiveness of clauses that seek to exclude or limit liability for breach unless such clauses can be shown to satisfy the reasonableness test under UCTA 1977, s 11. The case also looks at whether a notice to accelerate a loan is valid if acceleration is expressed to be conditional on future events. or take a trial to read the full analysis.

Popular documents