This is valid except otherwise provided for in the contract. Even if, provided for, the provision, further, need to pass the reasonability requirement.
Further credence to asserting that the clause contained in the contract had, in effect upon signing, become binding to the Landlord and the Tenant, get support from Section 3(2) (bi) UTCCA of 19996. The section stipulates that one party to the contract cannot provide that not provided for in the contract. Rather, any other provisions lie at the discreet choice of the party offering the provisions.
The above Section, therefore, explains that since a contract existed between the Landlord and the tenant, each party got bound by the terms contained in the contract. Therefore, the tenant deserves no right, in light of the contract, to demand that the landlord take responsibility on damages incurred as per the MP3.
In the court case of Suisse Atlantique Societe d'Armement Maritime SA v Rotterdamsche Kolen Centrale7, the issue of the use of understandable language in contracts undergoes examination. In Part 3 of the determination of the case, Lord Reid sums up the complexity of language involved in contracts. He stipulates that the use of simple and intelligible language in contracts avert misunderstandings and arguments.
The possibility that consumers do not, in most cases, take due diligence in reading the terms of contracts comes to the fore in the aforementioned case. Therefore, upon realization that the terms restrict them in one way or another, they get taken by surprise8. The simplicity and intelligibility of the language used in drawing up the contract between the Landlord and the Tenant rules out the possibility of the misunderstanding of the contents of the contract.
Therefore, in light of the case at hand, the possibility that the Tenant did not diligently read and understand the terms of the contract9. This failure on the part of the Tenant should not enforce the taking of liability by the landlord. Therefore, on this basis, the landlord needs exonerations from any blame in the misunderstanding of the contract.
In summary, and as reflected from the above submissions, the Honorable Court erred in terming the Clause in the contract as unreasonable. Further, if the need arises that the clause get struck out, then, according to the ruling in the case of Olley v Marlborough Court10, an insertion of an exemption cannot arise. This, therefore, points to a case where the current tenant moves out of the premises as the landlord re-drafts the contract terms.
Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977 and Unfair Terms in Consumer Contract Regulations