Section 280 — Competition and Consumer Act 2010: Cases where a linked credit provider is not liable

(1) In joint liability proceedings, a linked credit provider is not liable to a consumer under section 278 if the linked credit provider establishes that: (a) the credit provided by the credit provider to the consumer was the result of an approach made to the credit provider by the consumer; and (b) the approach was not induced by the supplier of the goods or services to which the linked credit contract relates. (2) In joint liability proceedings, a linked credit provider is not liable to a consumer under section 278 if the proceedings relate to the supply by way of lease, hire or hire-purchase of goods to the consumer by the linked credit provider, and the credit provider establishes that: (a) after due inquiry before becoming a linked credit provider of the supplier of the goods, the credit provider was satisfied that the reputation of the supplier in respect of the supplier’s financial standing and business conduct was good; and (b) after becoming a linked credit provider of the supplier, the credit provider had not had cause to suspect that: (i) the consumer might be entitled to recover an amount of loss or damage suffered as a result of a misrepresentation, breach, failure of consideration, failure to comply with a guarantee, or breach of a warranty, referred to in section 278(1); and (ii) the supplier might be unable to meet the supplier’s liabilities as and when they fall due. (3) In joint liability proceedings, a linked credit provider is not liable to a consumer under section 278 if the proceedings relate to a contract of sale in relation to which a tied loan contract applies and the linked credit provider establishes that: (a) after due inquiry before becoming a linked credit provider of the supplier of goods to which the contract relates, the credit provider was satisfied that the reputation of the supplier in respect of the supplier’s financial standing and business conduct was good; and (b) after becoming a linked credit provider of the supplier, but before the tied loan contract was entered into, the linked credit provider had not had cause to suspect that: (i) the consumer might, if the tied loan contract was entered into, be entitled to recover an amount of loss or damage suffered as a result of a misrepresentation, breach, failure of consideration, failure to comply with a guarantee, or breach of a warranty, referred to in section 278(1); and (ii) the supplier might be unable to meet the supplier’s liabilities as and when they fall due. (4) In joint liability proceedings, a linked credit provider is not liable to a consumer under section 278 if: (a) the proceedings relate to a contract of sale in relation to which a tied continuing credit contract entered into by the linked credit provider applies; and (b) the credit provider establishes the matter referred to in subsection (5), having regard to: (i) the nature and volume of business carried on by the credit provider; and (ii) such other matters as appear to be relevant in the circumstances of the case. (5) The matter for the purposes of subsection (4) is that the linked credit provider, before first becoming aware of: (a) the contract of sale referred to in paragraph (a) of that subsection; or (b) proposals for the making of such a contract; had not had cause to suspect that a person entering into such a contract with the supplier might be entitled to claim damages against, or recover a sum of money from, the supplier for a misrepresentation, breach, failure of consideration, failure to comply with a guarantee, or a breach of a warranty, referred to in section 278(1). (6) This section has effect despite section 278(1).