Some UK lenders also voluntarily sign the credit code. This requires, among other things, that the credit terms they provide to consumers, micro-enterprises and small charities in the UK be “substantially fair”. On 12 November 2016, protection against unfair contract terms was extended to small businesses. Shortly thereafter, ASIC questioned the validity of several standard form conditions that lenders rely on in credit agreements. ASIC Commissioner Sean Hughes spoke of the urgency for banks to act in response to the outcome of the case. Mr Hughes said: “ASIC is committed to protecting australia`s small entrepreneurs from unfair terms of credit agreements, particularly when commercial borrowers face inflexible standard terms. Yesterday`s ruling shows that ASIC will take the necessary steps to enforce the law. He also warned: “It is important that insurance companies prepare to extend these obligations into insurance contracts. It is important to note that the clauses were found to be unfair because of the particular way in which they were formulated and not because they fell within a specific category, for example. B because they constituted compensation. The point to be made is that the concepts falling within these categories are now being examined in greater depth and represent a greater chance of being challenged. As a result, companies that have the above-mentioned types of clauses in their contracts now need to verify them. Industry also has other ASIC guidelines that have stated that the transparency of a term “concepts hidden in the fine print or terms formulated in legal or complex language may not be transparent.
However, a transparent clause could still be unfair. With regard to the assessment of the fairness of a term in the context of the overall contract, ASIC stated that “for example, a potentially unfair term may be compensated if additional benefits are offered to the small business under the contract. This means that a term may be unfair in one contract, but not in another. In paragraph 2, Ms. Pontearso argued that the judge had placed too much emphasis on Chubb v. . . .