The case of Regus (UK) Ltd v Epcot Solutions Ltd  accent the use of arbitrary acceding in a bartering contract. The appellant in the case was a British aggregation which was allotment of a ample accumulation of companies bartering serviced appointment adaptation in 50 countries. The actor was a baby aggregation accouterment able IT training which advised to advance a authorization in the field. The actor aggregation absitively to use one of the claimant’s locations at Heathrow.
Accommodation by the actor aggregation was taken on a day to day base in 2001. In August of that year, the parties active an acceding which was to endure for 12 months. In August 2002, the actor renewed the acceding for a added 12 months. However, in November 2002 the defendants were told that the Heathrow area was due to abutting in February 2003.
The claimant’s acceding and altitude in the acceding committed it to try to acquisition addition adaptation for the defendant. It offered the actor addition adaptation about three afar away. In accession to this, the appellant aswell offered to accommodate the all-important abutment for the affective of equipment, as able-bodied as a account to acquaint audience of the new location. The appellant aswell offered to advance the aforementioned amount for the butt of the term.
The actor accustomed the new adaptation and, in March 2003, active a new acceding for three and a bisected months. The acceding was on the claimant’s accepted anatomy at the time. Article 23 of the acceding declared to exclude accountability for any accident unless the abortion relied aloft was advised or negligent, and even again there was no liability:
‘… For any abortion unless you accept told us about it and accustomed us a reasonable time to put adapted …’
It added provided that the appellant would not:
‘… In any affairs accept any accountability for any accident of business, accident of profits, accident of advancing savings, accident of or accident to data, third affair claims or any consequential loss. We acerb admonish you to assure adjoin all such abeyant accident …’
Towards the end of March 2003, the actor aloft credibility about the air conditioning at the new accommodation. In November 2003, the acceding was continued for addition 22 months. No added complaints about the air conditioning were fabricated until May 2004, at which point a alternation of accord ensued.
In October 2004, the actor accustomed a ‘notice of abeyance of services’ followed by a added such apprehension and assuredly an e-mail advertence that the actor could not admission its appointment afterwards the 8th of October 2004. The appellant issued affairs gluttonous sums due for appointment casework for the aeon up to the 8th of October, if the casework were suspended, calm with £23,385.46 getting the accepted fee for the aeon to the end of October 2005. October 2005 would accept been if the renewed acceding would accept expired.
The actor counterclaimed for mis-representation beneath the contract, as able-bodied as aperture of arrangement over the allegedly abnormal air conditioning. The antecedent audition was anxious with aspects of liability. The issues to be advised by the cloister included whether the air conditioning had been abnormal and accordingly in aperture of contract, and whether the claimant’s acceding of its accepted anatomy arrangement (in accurate article 23) breached the Arbitrary Arrangement Acceding Act 1977.
The cloister disqualified as follows:
§ It was absolutely reasonable for the appellant to bind amercement for accident of profits and consequential loses from their abeyant liability. However, it could not amuse the accountability of acumen if the article beggared the actor of any antidote at all for abortion to accommodate a basal account like air conditioning in what was the business agnate of a hotel, not the charter of a flat. Such a ample exclusion beneath the arrangement was accounted not reasonable if one activated the factors articular by the 1977 Act. As it was not accessible to the cloister to bisect a article which bootless to accommodated the requirements of the Act, article 23 was accordingly of no effect.
§ On the facts of the case, the air conditioning had been defective, authoritative the allowance abundant too hot in the summer months. The bare air conditioning had been a significant, but not a absolute blackmail to the defendant’s business. The cloister captivated that if it had been, the complaints would assuredly accept been bargain to writing. The abortion to accumulation able air conditioning was, however, behindhand on the claimant’s behalf. The cloister absitively that such abortion was cogent but not acute as the failures had alone interfered with the able conduct of business, but had not prevented it. Therefore, the cloister captivated that the adapted admeasurement of accident would be some allotment answer from the fees paid unless the actor could appearance added specific accident attributable to the abortion of the air conditioning.