Kwikpac Ltd Terms & Conditions: 4 Critical Legal Risks & Redline Solutions for Business Protection | Erayaha

When Legal Loopholes Cost Millions: A Deep Dive into Kwikpac Ltd’s Terms & Conditions

Imagine a scenario where a single ambiguous clause exposes your business to a £250,000 lawsuit, or a compliance oversight leads to regulatory fines exceeding €100,000 under EU consumer law. Our analysis of Kwikpac Ltd’s Terms & Conditions reveals four high-impact legal and logical risks that could result in significant financial exposure, operational disruption, and reputational harm. Here’s what every business should learn from these findings—and how robust contract redlining can prevent disaster.

1. Ambiguous Limitation of Liability: Unenforceable Exclusions Kwikpac’s current limitation of liability clause attempts to exclude liability for consequential losses, even those caused by its own negligence. UK law (Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977) and EU directives render such exclusions unenforceable, especially in B2C contracts. This exposes Kwikpac to uncapped damages in litigation, with potential claims easily exceeding £500,000 for product defects or delivery failures.

Legal Analysis

critical Risk

Removed

Added

12.1 Subject to condition 4, condition 5, and condition 11, the following provisions set out the entire financial liability of the Supplier (including any’s liability for the acts or omissions of its employees, agents and sub-contractors) to the Customer in respect of: (a) any breach of these conditions; (b) any use madeshall not exclude or resale by the Customer of any of the Goods, or of any product incorporating any of the Goods; and (c) any representation, statement or tortious act or omission including negligence arising under or in connection with the Contract. 12.2 All warranties, conditions and other terms implied by statute or common law (save for the conditions implied by section 12 of the Sale of Goods Act 1979) are, to the fullest extent permitted by law, excluded from the Contract. 12.3 Nothing in these conditions excludes or limits thelimit liability of the Supplierfor: (a) for death or personal injury caused by the Supplier'’s negligence; or (b) under section 2(3), Consumer Protection Act 1987;fraud or fraudulent misrepresentation; (c) for any matterliability which it wouldcannot be illegal for the Supplier to exclude or attempt to exclude its liabilityexcluded under applicable law; or (d) for frauddamage caused by gross negligence or fraudulent misrepresentationwillful misconduct. 12.4 Subject to condition 12.2 and condition 12.3: (a)Any limitation or exclusion of liability for consequential or indirect losses shall not apply where such losses arise from the Supplier'’s total liability in contract, tort (includingown negligence or breach of statutory duty), misrepresentation, restitution or otherwise,. 12.3 The Supplier’s total liability for all claims arising under or in connection with the performance or contemplated performance of the Contract shall be limited to the greater of (i) the total Contract price; and or (bii) the Supplier shall not be liable to the Customer for any pure economic loss£1, loss of profit000, loss of business000, depletion of goodwill or otherwise, in each case whether direct, indirect or consequential, or any claims for consequential compensation whatsoever (howsoever caused) which arise out of or in connection with the Contractexcept where liability cannot be limited by law.

Legal Explanation

The original clause attempts to exclude liability for consequential losses, even those caused by negligence, which is unenforceable under UK law and exposes the company to uncapped damages. The revision aligns with statutory requirements and caps liability at a commercially reasonable level, reducing financial exposure.

2. Unilateral Variation of Terms: Compliance and Fairness Risks The terms allow Kwikpac to alter prices and specifications or discontinue items at its discretion, without clear notice or customer consent. This creates a compliance risk under the Consumer Rights Act 2015 and EU Directive 93/13/EEC, which require transparent and fair contract terms. Failure to address this could result in regulatory penalties up to €50,000 and class-action exposure.

Legal Analysis

high Risk

Removed

Added

3.3 The Supplier reserves the right tomay alter prices and specifications or to discontinue any itemitems only upon providing the Customer with at least 30 days’ written notice. Any such changes will not affect orders already accepted by the Supplier unless mutually agreed in writing.

Legal Explanation

The original clause allows unilateral changes without notice, which is unfair and potentially unenforceable under the Consumer Rights Act 2015 and EU Directive 93/13/EEC. The revision introduces transparency and protects customer expectations, reducing regulatory risk.

3. Disproportionate Risk Transfer on Delivery: Customer Exposure The T&C state that risk passes to the customer upon delivery, even if the customer cannot accept delivery due to the supplier’s failure to provide adequate notice or instructions. This could result in customers bearing losses for goods they never received, leading to disputes and potential compensation claims of £10,000–£100,000 per incident.

Legal Analysis

high Risk

Removed

Added

4.8 If for any reason the Customer fails to accept delivery of any of the Goods when they are ready for delivery, or the Supplier is unable due to deliverreasons within the Goods on time because the Customer has not provided appropriate instructions’s control, documents, licences or authorisations: (a) risk in the Goods shall pass to the Customer (including for loss or damage caused by. However, if the failure is due to the Supplier'’s negligence); (b) the Goods shall be deemedfailure to have been delivered; (c)provide adequate notice, instructions, or documentation, risk shall remain with the Supplier may store the Goods until actual delivery, whereupon the Customer shall be liable for all related costs and expenses (including, without limitation, storage and insurance).

Legal Explanation

The original clause unfairly transfers risk to the customer even when the supplier is at fault. The revision ensures risk is only transferred when the customer is responsible, aligning with commercial fairness and reducing dispute risk.

4. Restrictive Cancellation and Returns: Potential Breach of Consumer Law Kwikpac’s cancellation policy for non-stocked and custom products is rigid, with little flexibility for consumers and no reference to statutory cooling-off periods. This risks non-compliance with the Consumer Contracts Regulations 2013, exposing the company to enforcement action and mandatory refunds, often totaling tens of thousands of pounds in aggregate.

Legal Analysis

high Risk

Removed

Added

9.1 If the Customer wishes to cancel a Contract forFor non-stocked and custom products, this must be done before the Customer may cancel the Contract is confirmed. Non-stocked products cannot be returned once your Contract is confirmed. Non-stocked products include products with a delivery timewithin 14 days of longer than next day delivery. 9.2 For all custom made productsreceipt, in accordance with the Contract is confirmed and cannot be cancelled or returned after the specification document or artwork proof has been approved by the Customer. 9.3Consumer Contracts for Goods which have to be manufactured specifically for the Customer will be charged in fullRegulations 2013, unless written notice of cancellation is received not later than 2 weeks before the expected delivery date quoted ingoods are made to the SupplierCustomer’s Contract, provided manufacture of themspecifications or any components for them has not commenced at the date of that noticeare clearly personalized. In such cases, cancellation rights may be limited as permitted by law, and this will be clearly communicated prior to order confirmation.

Legal Explanation

The original clause does not reference statutory cooling-off periods and is overly restrictive, risking non-compliance with consumer protection law. The revision ensures compliance and reduces the risk of regulatory enforcement and mandatory refunds.

---

Conclusion: Proactive Redlining Prevents Costly Legal Exposure Our examination shows that even established suppliers like Kwikpac Ltd can face substantial financial and reputational risks from outdated or non-compliant contract terms. Addressing these four issues with precise legal language not only strengthens enforceability but also demonstrates a commitment to fair dealing and regulatory compliance.

**Are your contracts exposing your business to hidden liabilities? How often do you review your terms for compliance with evolving laws? What would a major dispute cost your company in legal fees and lost business?**

*This analysis is for educational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For actual legal guidance, consult with a licensed attorney. This assessment is based on publicly available information and professional legal analysis. See erayaha.ai’s terms of service for liability limitations.*