Accc Rental Agreement

In addition, from December 2013 to July 2014, Europcar stated on its website that a consumer`s liability for damage caused by a vehicle accident would be limited to a « civil liability fee » (DLF) of $3650 or less if the consumer purchased Europcar`s « Extra Cover » products. However, under the lease, liability for damage caused by overhead, subfloor or water was not limited to the DLF, including in cases where « additional coverage » products were purchased. A contract is an agreement between two or more parties that is legally enforceable. Contracts may be concluded in writing or orally. The ACCC requested that certain liability and indemnification clauses contained in Europcar`s standard car rental agreement be found to be unfair and therefore void. This clause allowed Servcorp to change the price during the term of the contract without notice. There was no limit that required Servcorp to act reasonably or fairly. In the event of a price change, the other party may terminate the contract with one month`s notice. The court ruled that this was unfair even if the other party had a right of termination – they would have to pay a higher price for at least a month, and their only recourse would be to terminate the service and look for it elsewhere. Europcar Australia`s standard lease agreement of 2013 stipulated that consumers were to be held liable for loss or damage to vehicles if they breached the lease agreement, regardless of whether the breach was insignificant or whether it was related in any way to the loss or damage caused.

Consumers have also been held liable under the contract for loss of or damage to vehicles, whether or not the consumer is at fault. Similar provisions regarding the payment of fees have also been found in many standard car rental agreements reviewed by the ACCC. The report notes that none of the major car rental companies where the ACCC raised concerns adequately addressed these concerns. The ACCC recommends that companies seriously consider amending their model agreements to clearly set out the circumstances in which they would invoke a power to suspend or terminate services to the client. The Federal Supreme Court stated that Europcar Australia`s 2013 standard lease agreement contained a number of unfair terms and that it had provided false and misleading information about consumers` liability for damage to the vehicle. In proceedings brought by the ACCC, the Federal Supreme Court declared a number of terms of Europcar Australia`s 2013 standard lease unfair and therefore void. Partner John Hedge and lawyer Jessica Rusten are reviewing the unfair contract terms regime and examining the impact of the latter decision on commercial contracts to which the regime will extend later this year. The breach clause allowed Servcorp to terminate the contract without notice for a breach of the master lease, whether material or not. The clause did not give the other party time to remedy a breach, and even if it had to remedy the breach, Servcorp could still terminate the contract. The other party may not have received a copy of the master lease and may not have been aware of the breach. The Court considered that the possibility of termination without notice constituted a significant imbalance in the rights and obligations of the parties and constituted an unfair term.

This clause allowed Servcorp to determine whether and when the other party had actually served a notice. There was no corresponding clause that benefited the other party. Given the importance of the opinions in the agreement, the Court found that this term was unfair. The ACCC`s review revealed the widespread use of so-called « collective agreement clauses, » which are clauses drafted in general terms to exempt companies from liability for statements they or their representatives make to their clients. The ACCC notes that all companies (again excluding car rental companies) where it raised concerns about the existence of such clauses regarding « the entire agreement » responded to these concerns to its satisfaction. Now, the court has ruled that the company provided false or misleading information about insurance coverage and included unfair contract terms in its vehicle rental contracts. This clause prohibited the other party from inducing or persuading other Servcorp customers to move. It was valid for the duration of the agreement and for the following two years.

It imposed a minimum penalty of $15,000. This clause did not require Servcorp to prove its loss. .

CatégoriesNon classé