Unfair contractual terms resulting in the entire agreement being not binding and prerequisites for their replacement

Bibliogr. s. 81-82

The article is devoted, firstly, to defining the criteria for identifying unfair clauses in a Polish law governed consumer contract without which such contract cannot be binding on the parties in its entirety. Secondly, the article indicates the permissible scope for eliminating the unfair clauses. Finally, the requirements for replacing an unfair clause with a supplementary provision of Polish law, which allow the contract to be maintained, are analyzed. In the conclusions, the paper indicates that limits of the possibility of maintaining the contract in force are determined by the limits of conversion of defective contracts. The contract cannot be upheld if the removal of the unfair clause will materially transform its main subject matter (essential elements) or main contractual risk. A court cannot maintain an agreement by replacing it with a new content of rights and obligations which would not be foreseen by the parties due to public law regulations that apply to at least one of the parties (e.g. prudential requirements applicable to banks). Those public law requirements must not be violated by banks, and consequently, the courts shaping the contract anew do not have the power to violate those regulations as well. Such a practice would lead to the mass creation by courts of legal relationships generating systemic risks. If, without a given unfair clause, the contract cannot be binding, it cannot be declared by a court binding on the sole ground that it would constitute a sanction imposed by a civil court which may discourage the entrepreneur from continued use of unfair clauses.