In light of the facts and circumstances of the case, the National Commission found that the terms of the agreement were not binding on the homebuyers, taking into account the facts and circumstances of the case, and therefore brought the right of the owner to repay the amount, plus interest, on compensation. But why was the clause there? It gives such a bad impression of aggressive bias. The answer is almost certain that it was in the model that the author was used, and he or she did not decide to delete it before the first draft issued. The clause cited is drawn almost literally from a draft contract recently sent by IP-Draughts. He removed the clause when marking the project, the other party agreed to the removal, and there was no discussion necessary. A contract must definitely be concluded between the owner and the buyer, which contains all the necessary provisions to meet the requirements. The terms of the agreements should be fair, reasonable and apply in the same way to both parties. The clauses of the agreements are not a favour for one person and unfavourable to another person. If such a position is held, it would amount to an “unfair business practice” under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act 1986. This is explained in the case law discussed below. As a general rule, Clause X stipulates that the agreement is subject to the exclusive jurisdiction of a designated court.
We continue our series that highlights IP Draughts` “preferred” unilateral provisions in contracts. These provisions are often found in treaties where there is an imbalance of power between the parties and where the party with power (let`s call it the “boss”) tries to reduce a sometimes theoretical risk by imposing it on the other party (the “supplicant”). Andrew, my reaction to this is that it`s not insidious for the person asking for it (landlord?), because he`s just trying to facilitate a potential demand from the lenders. But it is insidious for lenders to require it instead of accepting that, if there are good reasons why the main agreement is made under another law, the lender should approve it. The mood of this clause is not particularly unusual – IP Draughts has seen similar clauses in a series of agreements that it has reviewed over the years. As a general rule, the clause appears only in agreements where the author is in “protection mode” and not in “reasonable and balanced mode.”