Court voids 34,000 unfair Fuji Xerox contracts Australia's Federal Court has voided 34,000 contracts that Fuji Xerox's local outposts offered to local small business customers, after they were found to be unfair in many ways. A judgement published on Friday found that over 34,000 contracts issued by the company – for products such as photocopiers, scanners, multifunction …
Far too many contracts contain this, often with the burden on the customer of finding out that there has been a change - expected to check a web site and notice that some wording is different.
This sort of thing should be blanket banned with limited exceptions for things like inflation linked price changes.
The trouble is that they are all at it so it is hard to find a supplier that plays fair.
Should be banned in all cases.
If they want to raise the price during the lifetime of the contract, then the intervals and calculation method should be explicitly in the contract.
And if they want to change the interval or calculation method, then that should be notified beforehand and considered a reasonable grounds for termination without penalty.
Same as it is for consumers.
Of course, Cloud means you cannot ever terminate without a significant penalty...
Irrespective of delivery ?
You mean to tell me that you'll be billing me for software that you didn't actually give me ?
And you're hoping that I'll swallow that and keep quiet ?
Well, that's another company on my blacklist.
Indeed.
"We licenced the software to you, so you owe us, even if you didn't want it, don't need it, and never installed it."
vs
"We licensed the OnStar service package to you, so you owe us, even if" etc etc.
Funny that this stuff is allowed, yet if - for example - you go putting books through random peoples' letterboxes and then sending them an invoice weeks later, it's rightly considered to be an unfair contract and not something you can enforce.
Ain't ongoing-X-as-a-Service, own-nothing-rent-everything great?
I awarded a contract to a company with an explicit start and end date. After the end date they sent me an invoice for the next year. I said I hadn't ordered renewal and I wasn't going to pay. They claimed I hadn't actually cancelled the contract and so they auto-renewed it without any contract amendment by me.
I suggested they take me to court to claim their invoice. They never did.
They are just bullys: Like any bully, stand up to them and they soon back down.
I once took out a years support with a well known PC manufacture. There was no auto renew mentioned and the docs had a clear end date.
Then I spotted I'd been charger the following year and called my credit card company to say I wasn't paying it. Got connected to the fraud team who asked for the details
Oh another one
was the response. Sounded like they'd been getting these calls all day.
Turned out it wasn't the company (or at least they claimed it wasn't) the guy in the call centre was on commission and was keeping all the customer details and then re-entering them after the contract expired and claiming then as a new sale.
... who isn't hell bent on screwing their customers over? Who just delivers a functioning printer without built in bricking device, without evil bloatware, without illegal contracts, without all the stuff nobody wants? Canon, HP, Lexmar, Epson, Brother, Xerox. Every single one of them.
I do believe there is a market share to be gained by a Peterbilt of printing. If there is not, then all hope is lost.
Nope - OKI messed with me. I bought an MFP from them with £400 cash-back if you "mail in this voucher by 31st December". I mailed it, a couple of days late, due to delivery issues and New Year. They refused to honour the discount. Yes, technically my fault as I missed the date, however the kind of taste that leaves in your mouth as this was a "sales incentive" and the way I was treated when I asked them nicely to honour the £400 discount on the £2000 printer, means I will not buy a printer from them again. And they get this "free" advertising in public.
As for the cost of toner directly from OKI vs other suppliers? Hahahahahaha.
"a Peterbilt of printing"
I think that needs explaining for those of us on this side of the pond although I suppose the sentiment can be grasped.
For the wider point I haven't seen any such problems with my Brother printer. It accepts 3rd party cartridges without complaint.
I was about to say the same. My Brother colour laser printer works well, hasn't done anything nasty to me or caused me to spend any money except paper and toner, and works with FOSS software.
Of course, I'm not stupid: I don't let it download software updates or talk to anywhere on the Internet, in fact.
To be fair. my wife's much cheaper entry-level colour laser Lexmark is the same. We turned off software updates but she does use the proprietary Windows drivers. It hasn't done anything nasty either.
These are both consumer models, and consumer purchases - I can't comment on how they work if you go for a business contract.
Earlier this year we had an issue with a SAAS supplier.
Contract expires on date X
Invoice issued 120 days prior to X with payment terms 90 days prior to X
Cancellation of renewal also must be received 90 days prior to X or invoice is payable.
For complex reasons we decided to renew but told them payment would not be made until within 30 days of X. Had they refused and not sorted some other issues we were going to serve a cancellation notice, knowing we'd withdraw it anyway - what would they do? Refuse to take our money?
I don't know about Australian law but, in the UK, there is a premise with B2B contracts that both parties should know what they're doing - a contract between equals. This is in contrast to consumer contracts where the premise is that the supplier has the greater understanding (and power) and the consumer does not fully understand what they're contracting - not a contract between equals and the law acts to provide a better balance.
It was something I had to emphasise to students on a contract law module I used to tutor as they would often reference consumer law when discussing B2B contracts.
There's no excusing contracts like those in the article, and I sometimes feel there should be a proportionate application of consumer law when the two sides of a B2B contract are not balanced (as with a multi-national supplying an SME), but understanding what you are doing should be an essential part of entering into any business (and contract).
"...when the two sides of a B2B contract are not balanced"
There has been a judgement on this very topic.
Bates v Post Office Ltd (No 3) [2019] EWHC 606 (QB)
There the judge held that the terms and conditions imposed by the Post Office in their contract appointing a new post-master contained unfair, onerous and unreasonable terms. The PO held that the incoming Post-Master was an equal in a business setting, something the judge, Mr. Justice Fraser, dismissed as completely wrong and that the PO had all the power to impose any conditions it liked on the new Post-Master and had abused that power.
The PO got their head handed to them on a plate and they went on to lose the whole case, as many will remember.
So in England and Wales small businesses have a shield against a powerful potential business partner and it looks like SMEs in Australia are now similarly protected.
These were mostly small businesses. Suggesting they can sue is fine in principle. In practice it takes time and money, and the cost of that may not be worth it.
Several years ago I had a (IMO) very good case for bringing to the small claims court. But preparing for the case, getting all the paperwork correct, doing things that the court expects to be done in a certain way, going to court, etc, eventually meant it was just not worth my time to do it. I might win (I expected to win), in which case I would have about £1,000 in my pocket. If I add up my time spent preparing for the case and going to court, that £1,000 is not worth it. If it's a business, it might not be worth going to court for £5,000 or £10,000.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2025
