This Agreement is made on [date] Parties 1 [insert name of supplier] [of OR a company incorporated in [England and Wales] under number [insert registered number] whose registered office is at] [insert address] (Supplier); and 2 [insert name of customer] [of OR a company incorporated in [England and Wales] under number [insert registered number] whose registered office is at] [insert address] (Customer) (each of the Supplier and the Customer being a party and together the Supplier and the Customer are the parties). Background (A) The Supplier conducts the business of supplying [insert description of services] to other businesses. (B) The Customer conducts the business of [insert description]. (C) The parties have agreed that the Supplier shall supply services to the Customer on the terms set out in this Agreement. The parties agree: 1 Definitions and interpretation 1.1 In this Agreement: Affiliate • means any entity that directly or indirectly Controls, is Controlled by, or is under common Control with, another entity; Business Day • means a day other than a Saturday, Sunday or bank or public holiday in England; Change • means any change to this Agreement including to any of the Services; Change Request • means a request submitted by a party to effect

Introduction This Practice Note addresses frequently asked questions concerning the standards that traders must meet when supplying services to consumers and the remedies available where those standards are not met. The principal framework is contained in Part 1, Chapter 4 of the Consumer Rights Act 2015 (CRA 2015), which treats specified standards and information as contractual terms and provides statutory remedies for non-conforming services. Sector-specific legislation may impose additional or alternative requirements for particular services. For further information, see Practice Notes: • Consumer Rights Act 2015—services • Consumer Rights Act 2015—unfair terms • Distance, doorstep and on-premises sales • Consumer remedies and redress This Practice Note addresses the following frequently asked questions: • What standards must a trader meet when supplying services to a consumer? • What happens if the parties did not agree the price or the time for completing the service? • Are statements made by a trader about a service legally binding? • When can a consumer require repeat performance? • When can a consumer claim a price reduction, and how is the reduction calculated? • Can

ARCHIVED: This Practice Note has been archived and is not maintained. This Practice Note considers Article 25 of Regulation (EU) 1215/2012, Brussels I (recast) and the requirements that need to be met to show the court there is an effective choice of court agreement between the parties. It provides background information as to the position already adopted by the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) on such agreements and what changes have been brought into place under the regulation and what that might mean in practice. Equivalent wording to Article 25 of Regulation (EU) 1215/2012, Brussels I (recast) was found in its predecessors, being Article 17 of the Brussels Convention and Article 23 of Regulation (EC) 44/2001, Brussels I. Cases referenced in this Practice Note therefore include those decided under that convention and regulation as they are relevant to understanding the requirements of Article 25. For general information about choice of court agreements, see Practice Note: E&W Brussels I (recast)—choice

Updated in January 2026 Introduction Though one of the smallest countries in Europe, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg (Luxembourg) is one of the world’s heavyweights when it comes to doing business and one of the most important European financial and industrial centres. Luxembourg attracts investment banks, asset management companies, investment funds and holding companies but also companies active in information and communication technology and space sectors, from all over the world, making it a preferred gateway into the EU as well as a major business hub. Thanks to its political, social and legal stability, and the effort of its political class to create a business-friendly environment, Luxembourg has developed a reputation for pro-business legislation and administration. This guide, aimed at businesses wanting to establish themselves in Luxembourg, provides a comprehensive overview of the key features of Luxembourg law that will need to be addressed before starting operations in Luxembourg. It should be noted however that, no matter how comprehensive this guide is, it should not be

This week's edition of Commercial weekly highlights includes: commentary on the decision in EE Ltd v Virgin Mobile Telecoms Ltd 2023 which considered a claim for breach of exclusivity provisions, analysis of the Department for Culture, Media and Sport’s response to its consultation on the Online Advertising Programme, and news that the National Trading Standards Estate and Letting Agency Team has published its revised guidance on supplementary terms used when advertising properties.

This week's edition of IP weekly highlights includes: a hand-picked summary of news analysis, updates and new content from the world of IP. These highlights focus on the key rights of copyright and associated rights, database rights, trade marks and passing off, designs, and patents as well as covering issues relating to confidential information, know-how R&D and IP disputes all mainly from a UK and European perspective.

This week’s edition of Employment weekly highlights includes: (1) a House of Commons Library briefing summarising the stages of the Employment Rights Bill to date, including amendments to the Bill so far, (2) an EAT judgment examining the approach an employment tribunal should take to issues of group disadvantage and justification in a complaint of indirect sex discrimination, (3) a successful employment tribunal constructive dismissal claim by an Arts Council England manager forced to resign after she made a one-off comment comparing staff who believe sex is binary to racists, (4) views from legal commentators on the Court of Appeal decision in Higgs v Farmor’s School, (5) an employment tribunal decision finding that a school did not discriminate when it dismissed a teaching assistant for voicing his opposition to same-sex marriage and abortion, (6) dates for your diary, and (7) other news items of interest to employment practitioners.

Employment analysis: Will there be a rush of UK contractors back to tax-efficient PSC contracting models? Kevin Barrow, partner, Frances Lewis, consultant, Ian Hyde, partner and head of tax disputes, and Shaziya Kurmani, associate director, all at Osborne Clarke, comment on the implications of Chancellor of the Exchequer Kwasi Kwarteng’s plans to repeal the IR35 reforms.

As set out in Practice Note: IR35—introduction, developments and key difficulties, the IR35 regime comprises two main aspects. This Practice Note explains the aspect of the IR35 regime which applies where: • from 6 April 2017, a public authority, and • from 6 April 2021, a private sector entity (other than one that is ‘small’ or does not have a ‘UK connection’) engages a worker via an intermediary such as a personal service company (PSC). This aspect of the IR35 regime is referred to as the ‘large and public client off-payroll regime’ throughout this Practice Note and all other items within this subtopic. The other aspect of the IR35 regime applies in all other circumstances, for example where the engaging end client is a small private sector entity or is one that does not have a UK connection. That regime is referred to as the ‘small client off-payroll regime’ throughout this Practice Note and all other items within this subtopic. For an explanation and consideration of the small client

This week's edition of Construction weekly highlights includes the responses of several built environment industry bodies to the King’s Speech 2024, a case in which the Court of Appeal confirmed that the ‘Mackay v Dick Principle’ (relating to prevention of contractual performance) forms part of English law (King Crude Carriers v Ridgebury), a case in which the Technology and Construction Court (TCC) highlighted that claims brought under Part 8 must not involve substantial disputes of fact (ISG Retail Ltd v FK Construction Ltd), an update on the status of the Arbitration Bill after being put on hold prior to the general election, and the publication of three new guidance documents in relation to the Procurement Act 2023 (PA 2023) by the Cabinet Office.

FORTHCOMING CHANGE: Section 28 of the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Act 2026 (CWSA 2026) amends the Children and Young Persons Act 1933 (CYPA 1933), including section 18 on restrictions on employment of children. CWSA 2026, s 28 came into force on 29 April 2026 (the date the Act was passed) but only so far as it confers or relates to a power to make regulations. Secondary legislation is awaited to bring CWSA 2026, s 28 substantively into force. This Practice Note considers the special issues employers should be aware of when employing children, young people and apprentices, such as: • issues relating to the contractual capacity of minors (see: Contractual capacity of minors, below) • statutory rules relating to the employment of children (see: Employment of children, below) including general restrictions on work and hours, local authority byelaws and licences for paid performances, sport and modelling • children’s statutory rights (see: Statutory rights of children, below) • the legal issues relating to the employment of young people • the duty to participate in education and training

This week's edition of Commercial weekly highlights includes: analysis of the High Court decision in Provimi France SAS v Stour Bay Company Ltd considering whether a set of standards terms and conditions were incorporated by reference to a course of dealings, news of the Supreme Court judgement in Bloomberg LP v ZXC upholding the decision that a person under criminal investigation has a reasonable expectation of privacy in respect of information relating to the investigation and analysis of Ansari v Google UK Ltd in which the court found that the UK subsidiary was not inherently liable for GDPR compliance by its US parent company.