Terms you showed afterwards are not terms
Before anything about wording, the thing that decides whether your terms work.
Terms only form part of a contract if they were brought to the other side's attention before it was made. That rules out a great deal of what small businesses do:
- A link in the website footer that somebody could have clicked.
- Terms sent out with the invoice.
- Conditions printed on the back of a delivery note.
- A page added to the website after the order came in.
All of those produce a well-drafted document that does not apply to the deal you are arguing about. The fix is unglamorous: put them in the quote, and get an acceptance that refers to them.
The clauses this tool will not write
"No refunds under any circumstances." "We accept no liability whatsoever." "Goods are sold as seen." Against a consumer, all of them do nothing.
Section 31 of the Consumer Rights Act 2015 is a list of liabilities that a term simply cannot exclude or restrict: satisfactory quality, fitness for a purpose you were told about, goods as described, matching a sample, the right to supply the goods, delivery, and when risk passes.
So this tool will not generate them. Not as a matter of taste. A term that reads firm and is void is worse than no term, because the business relies on it, stops looking for the thing that would have worked, and finds out at the point of dispute.
Selling to both is two documents in one
Against a business customer you can limit your total liability to the contract price and exclude indirect loss. Against a consumer you cannot.
If you sell to both, the clauses have to say which is which. A single set of terms that quietly applies business limits to consumers is one of the commonest defects in small firm paperwork, and it is completely invisible until the day it matters.
This tool marks them on screen and on the PDF for that reason.
What nobody can exclude, from anybody
Death or personal injury caused by negligence, and fraud. Not against consumers, not against businesses, not by agreement.
The liability clause here says so out loud. That looks like giving something away and it is the opposite: a blanket exclusion is the wording most likely to be struck out, and when it goes it can take the reasonable parts of the clause with it. Stating the carve-out makes the rest of the limit more likely to stand.
A guarantee is extra, not instead
"Twelve month guarantee" reads to most customers as the end of their rights at twelve months. It is not, and letting somebody believe it is misleading.
Statutory rights can run considerably longer than a voluntary guarantee, and they exist whether you offer one or not. The clause says the guarantee is in addition to legal rights, which costs you nothing and removes a genuine complaint.
Deposits, and the word penalty
A deposit clause that does not say when the money is and is not refundable is the clause that produces the argument.
There is a second point against consumers. A deposit you keep has to bear some relation to what the cancellation cost you. Keeping the lot when nothing had been spent invites the argument that it is a penalty rather than compensation, and that is a losing position even when the customer behaved badly.
"We keep whatever we have already spent on materials" is a better clause than "deposits are non-refundable", and it is easier to defend because it is obviously fair.
Common questions
Do my terms and conditions actually apply?
Only if you showed them before the contract was made. This is how a lot of small businesses find out their terms do not apply. A link in a website footer that somebody could have clicked, terms sent with the invoice, or conditions printed on the back of a delivery note are all too late. Put them in the quote, and get an acceptance that refers to them.
Can I write "no refunds under any circumstances"?
You can write it and it does nothing. Section 31 of the Consumer Rights Act 2015 says a term is not binding on a consumer if it would exclude or restrict liability for satisfactory quality, fitness for purpose, goods as described, matching a sample, the right to supply, delivery, or risk. This tool will not generate that wording, because a term that reads firm and is void is worse than no term at all: it stops you doing the thing that would have helped.
Are consumer and business terms different?
Genuinely different documents, and most generators do not ask. Against a business customer you can limit your total liability and exclude indirect loss. Against a consumer you cannot touch the statutory rights. If you sell to both, the document has to say which clauses apply to whom, and a single set of terms that quietly applies business limits to consumers is a very common defect that stays invisible until somebody tests it.
Is there anything I cannot exclude even against a business?
Yes. Death or personal injury caused by your negligence, and fraud, cannot be excluded or restricted against anybody. The clause here says so explicitly rather than staying quiet, because a blanket "we accept no liability whatsoever" is the wording most likely to be struck out, and it can take the rest of the clause with it.
Does a guarantee replace a customer's legal rights?
No, it sits on top of them, and saying so matters. A customer who reads "12 month guarantee" as their only remedy after twelve months has been misled, because the statutory right can run considerably longer. The guarantee clause states that it is in addition to legal rights for exactly that reason.
What about deposits?
Say when it is and is not refundable. A deposit clause that stays silent on this produces the argument. Against a consumer there is a further point: a deposit you keep that is not a genuine pre-estimate of what the cancellation cost you can be challenged as a penalty.
Do I need the 14 day cancellation clause?
If you sell to consumers online, by phone, or away from your premises, yes, and you have to tell them about the right before they order rather than afterwards. Not telling them does not remove the right. It extends it, by a considerable margin.