When renting out a property, some landlords add an extra provision to the lease known as a “life protection clause.”
These clauses usually state that if a tenant commits suicide or is killed inside the rental property, the tenant, the tenant’s parents, relatives, or guarantor must buy back the property or pay a large portion of the property’s value as compensation.
Many people see this type of clause and think:
“If everyone signed it, shouldn’t it be valid?”
However, a contract cannot contain just anything.
Some provisions may be invalid even if everyone signed them.
What Does the Law Say?
Civil Code Article 72:
“A juridical act which is against public order or good morals is void.”
✨ Plain Explanation: Although parties are generally free to agree on the terms of a contract, not every type of provision is legally permitted. If a clause violates public order or good morals, it may be void even if both parties signed it.
⚖️ Legal Source: Civil Code Article 72 – Law.moj.gov.tw
Mandatory Provisions to be Included in and Prohibitory Provisions of the Standard Form Rental Housing Contract:
“Provisions in violation of mandatory or prohibitory laws and regulations shall not be included.”
✨ Plain explanation: A residential lease cannot be drafted however the landlord wants. If a provision itself is illegal or violates a legal prohibition, it cannot be included in the standard lease agreement.
⚖️ Legal Source: Ministry of the Interior – Residential Lease Standard Contract Regulations
Consumer Protection Act, Article 11, Paragraph 1:
“The standard form contract terms used by enterprises shall be based on the principle of fairness and reciprocity.”
✨ Plain explanation: If a landlord uses a pre-printed lease agreement, the landlord cannot shift all risks to the tenant or require the tenant to bear an excessively heavy and obviously unreasonable responsibility.
⚖️ Legal Source: Consumer Protection Act Article 11 – Law.moj.gov.tw
Enforcement Rules of Consumer Protection Act, Article 14:
“A standard form contract term shall be deemed to violate the principle of fairness and reciprocity under any of the following circumstances:
1. The consideration and counter-consideration between the parties are obviously disproportionate.
2. The consumer is required to bear risks beyond the consumer’s control.
3. The consumer is required to bear obviously disproportionate liability for damages upon breach.
4. Other circumstances are obviously unfavorable to the consumer.”
✨ Plain explanation: If a clause requires a tenant to bear risks outside the tenant’s control, or to pay an extremely unfair amount of compensation if something happens, the clause is likely to be considered unfair.
⚖️ Legal Source: Enforcement Rules of Consumer Protection Act Article 14 – Law.moj.gov.tw
What Is a “Life Protection Clause”?
In practice, a typical life protection clause may read like this:
If, during the lease term, the tenant commits suicide, is killed, or any other circumstance occurs within the rental property that causes the property to become a stigmatized property, the tenant, the tenant’s parents, relatives, and guarantor shall repurchase the property from the landlord at its market value. If the property is not repurchased, they shall compensate the landlord in an amount equal to three-fifths of the market value of the property. This clause shall become effective upon signature by the tenant, the tenant’s parents, and the guarantor.
At first glance, this type of clause may seem like a way to “agree in advance on liability.”
In reality, however, it shifts all possible future risks arising from a major incident directly onto the tenant and the tenant’s family.
The amount of compensation is usually extremely high.
The clause may require the tenant to buy back the entire property, pay a percentage of the property’s market value, or even pay a fixed amount of several million dollars.
The problem is that a contract may allocate damages, but it cannot do so in a way that is clearly excessive or unreasonable.
Why Are Life Protection Clauses Usually Invalid?
The biggest problem with a life protection clause is that it directly ties human life or a major personal tragedy to an extremely heavy financial obligation.
For example:
- If any incident occurs, the tenant must buy back the property.
- The tenant must pay compensation equal to three-fifths of the property’s market value.
- Not only the tenant, but also the tenant’s parents and relatives must bear responsibility.
A clause like this is very likely to be regarded as violating public order and good morals.
The law allows parties to allocate responsibility, but it does not allow one party to impose every possible risk on the other in an extreme way.
In particular, requiring the tenant to “buy back the property” is not based on the actual amount of damage suffered. Instead, it predetermines an extremely harsh result in advance.
Even if the property’s actual loss later turns out to be much lower, the clause still requires the same heavy compensation.
For that reason, such clauses are often considered excessively burdensome and manifestly unfair, and are therefore likely to be void under Article 72 of the Civil Code.
Why May a Life Protection Clause Also Violate the Consumer Protection Act?
In addition to public order and good morals, life protection clauses often raise another issue: unfair standard form contract terms.
Article 14 of the Enforcement Rules of the Consumer Protection Act provides that a clause may violate the principle of fairness and reciprocity if it requires the consumer to bear:
- Risks beyond the consumer’s control
- Obviously disproportionate liability for damages
- Terms that are clearly unfavorable to the consumer
Life protection clauses usually involve all three.
In many cases, the landlord prepares the lease in advance and simply asks the tenant to sign it. The tenant often has little room to negotiate the contents and can only either accept the lease or walk away.
Under those circumstances, requiring the tenant to bear a duty such as “if anything happens, pay millions of dollars or buy back the property” is very likely to be considered unfair.
Therefore, a life protection clause may not only be invalid, but may also violate the Mandatory Provisions to be Included in and Prohibitory Provisions of the Standard Form Rental Housing Contract if included in a standard residential lease.
Even If Parents, Relatives, and Guarantors Sign, It Still May Not Help
Many landlords worry that if something happens, the tenant may no longer be able to bear responsibility.
As a result, they try to include the tenant’s parents, relatives, and guarantor in the life protection clause.
However, that may not help.
As a general rule, a contract only binds those who signed it.
A third party who never signed the contract obviously cannot be bound by it.
More importantly, even if the parents or guarantor did sign, the clause is still invalid if the clause itself violates public order and good morals.
In other words, adding more signatures does not make an invalid clause valid.
Some life protection clauses even state that “relatives shall bear responsibility,” even though those relatives never participated in the lease and never agreed to such a clause.
In that situation, it is even less likely that the landlord could legally require those relatives to pay.
What Risks Does a Landlord Face by Including a Life Protection Clause in the Lease?
Besides the possibility that the clause itself is invalid, the landlord may face another problem: the government may regard the clause as an illegal standard form contract provision.
The Mandatory Provisions to be Included in and Prohibitory Provisions of the Standard Form Rental Housing Contract clearly prohibit provisions that violate mandatory or prohibitory laws.
If a landlord still inserts a life protection clause into a standard lease agreement, the competent authority may require the landlord to revise the contract within a specified period.
If the landlord refuses to correct it, the landlord may even face penalties under the Consumer Protection Act.
In other words, the problem with a life protection clause is not merely that it may be unenforceable. In some situations, including it in the lease may itself create legal risk.
🤠Related Read: Who Is Liable for a Suicide Property in Taiwan?
🌵 Related Read: Who Is Liable for Fire Damage in Taiwan?
🐎Related Read: What Should a Landlord Do If a Tenant Refuses to Move Out After the Lease Ends in Taiwan?
⭐ Related Read: What to Do if a Tenant Becomes Uncontactable or Goes Missing in Taiwan?
Conclusion
A life protection clause may appear to protect the landlord, but in reality, this type of provision is often considered invalid because it violates public order, good morals, and the principle of fairness.
Even if the tenant, parents, and guarantor all sign the clause, that does not necessarily mean it is legally enforceable.
The law does not look at how many people signed the clause. It looks at whether the clause itself is fair and lawful.
Rather than inserting a harsh clause into the lease that may ultimately be completely useless, it is usually better to use a lawful lease agreement, carefully screen tenants, and keep proper records of inspections and handover conditions. That is a far more controllable and reliable way to manage risk.
