The other party (Nuriya) cannot perform work that is significantly different than what is expected. Concerning the Act mentioned above, but in section 17 of Part II, applies to this situation and will be specially applied to this case as well. Throughout most of this remaining piece the Unfair Contract Terms will be abbreviated as “UCT” for convenience.
It may appear that Nuriya did not conduct work that was unexpected of Flavio and Marco because they read the contract and made a payment that all agreed upon at that time was pertaining to the contract mentioned. Both Flavio and Marco did in fact “insist” on differences before agreement of the contract was made and those two made it clear that Nuriya should make these changes, the reasonable individual(s) would have known that Nuriya did not want to make such changes. The reason this is so is because Nuriya had added the clause “The agreement will be carried out under the conditions set up on Nuriyas previous communication.”
The addition of this clause undoubtedly changes the conditions of the contract and if the other parties knowingly reads and made payment to this particular change then any payments to Nuriya would likely imply an understanding of the contract by Flavio and Marco. The other party (Nuriya) has not performed differently than what is expected.
As per Schedule Two of the UCT Act (1977) “whether the customer knew or ought reasonably to have known of the existence and the extent of the term (having regard, among other things, to any custom of the trade and any previous course of dealing between the parties) is relevant here.
More plainly, the contract possessed new language, and quite arguably Flavio and Marco should have known the new conditions written, and that signing the contract and additionally making a first payment to Nuriya after signing the contract would