Supreme Court and in implementation of the UTCC Directive also may affect available remedies.
If the UTCC Directive discussed earlier in the Article (286) were decided to be "better" in terms of protecting the perceived consumer interest, that fact alone is not dispositive on the "quality" of the legislative body enacting the legislation.
292) The UTCC Directive's gray-list approach recognizes the consumer concerns with arbitration as a means of dispute resolution by presumptively invalidating such clauses.
Some types of terms related to quality of consumer goods, which have a fairness dimension, are not addressed by the UTCC Directive.
See also Report from the Commission on the Implementation of Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts, COM (2000) 248 final, at 13 (noting that competition is distorted by the cost-externalizing effects of unfair terms, and that unfair terms lead to distortions in competition and lower quality prices and services) [hereinafter UTCC Report].
See UTCC Report, supra note 174, at 16-19 (account of black-list versus gray-list question in UTCC Directive debate).
But see Bradgate, supra note 190 (arguing that innovations to English good faith doctrine following the UTCC Directive are overstated by some authors).
Wilhelmsson, supra note 184, at 20 (discussing potential adverse effect that UTCC Directive may have on Nordic contract law and theory).
In a recent article Gunther Teubner argues that the interjection of good faith into British law by the UTCC Directive should be interpreted as an "irritant" that will provoke a uniquely British reconstruction of the doctrine rather than as a "transplant" of foreign legal doctrine into the domestic British system.
Paragraph (q) of the Annex to the UTCC directive provides that the following types of clauses may be considered unfair: