Among other things, the respondents also argued that the terms of the agreement were unilateral. In accordance with the agreement reached by the home buyer, the complainant`s contractor can calculate interest of 18% per year for late payments. The complainant – but the owner was not obliged to pay the same interest to the home buyers for late delivery of the apartment property. On the contrary, if the complainant – the owner when the property was handed over – the defendant – the buyers of the dwellings are entitled to interest of only 9% per year. Zlimen and De Palma both suggest that the best way to do this is to consult a lawyer from the outset if you feel that a contract you need to sign may be unacceptable. If you have already signed, Zlimen recommends “hiring a lawyer as soon as you suspect that you must withdraw from the agreement or if you are threatened with prosecution or prosecuted. The sooner the lawyer is called, the more potential there is to negotiate a cost-effective and cost-effective solution. Homebuyer: The home buyer argued that the terms of the contract were unilateral. Under the agreement, the owner could charge interest of 18% in the event of a late payment, but the flat buyer was only able to obtain a maximum interest rate of 9% for the termination of the contract due to a delay on the part of the owner. In addition, Flat Purchaser informed the court of further flax evidence by him because of an excessive delay on the part of the owner and the bank loan he had received for the purchase of the apartment by the owner. Even if an unser serious contract is considered legally invalid and therefore unenforceable, it is costly to ask a court to decide that a contract is not in accordance with the treaty. By being aware of what it means to have a treaty not serious and knowing what the signs of a unilateral treaty are, you can avoid future complications by renegotiating the terms or turning away from an agreement that is fundamentally unacceptable.
The Court relied on the terms of the agreement, as applied by the contractor in the presentation of its allegations, and found that “the agreement reveals strong inconsistencies between the remedies available to both parties.” The Court referred to the 199th report of the Indian Legal Commission on “unfair procedural and de facto conditions in the contract”, which held that “a contract or clause of the contract is essentially abusive when such a contract or its clause is in itself harsh, oppressive or unacceptable to either party.”