BLT on account of the need to secure business interests and for the purpose of retaining clients has decided to incorporate some terms into client contracts. Primarily, BLT wants to reserve right to charge for its service and facilities without intimation to the client. BLT wants it known that any form of change that it could carry out with respect to some specific terms is still expected to bind the customer in contract. Clients can either accept these terms of contracting with BLT or they could choose not to join at all. In addition, march has instructed that these terms be presented in a technical way that clients would not be able to notice these terms easily when they sign the contract. Now are these terms valid in ACL and if not what are the possible breaches of the ACL.
Now applying the rules to the current situation, it could be said that BLT is indeed one of the parties that is at a special advantage here. The other parties that enter into contract with BLT will suffer a disadvantage for sure as there is a reasonable inequality in how they would not be able to raise any questions into changes that BLT could make. Furthermore, BLT is ensuring that any changes it makes still renders BLT as acting on the right side of the contract, whereas the other contractors if they are dissatisfied with the new changes, would still be expected to honor the contract. Finally, BLT has acted in an unconscionable way as it has taken advantage of the weaker contractors knowing that it gains an unfair advantage. Furthermore, Marc advising that such terms be written in a way that contractors would not take much notice of it, is almost fraudulent and shows that he has not acted in good faith in pre-contract negations.
Under Australian consumer law, BLT by entering into such a contract, has breached good faith, has breached its duty to conscionable conduct.