Showing: 21 - 27 of 27 Articles

Irremediable Mistakes

It is common for contracts to contain termination provisions that only allow for termination for a remediable breach if notice of the breach is given and the breaching party is allowed time to remedy it. For a party considering the application of such a clause, an obvious question is: what breaches do the courts consider capable of remedy? The High Court of England and Wales recently considered this in Stobart Capital Ltd v Esken Ltd. While not making new law, the case is a good reminder that the answer is maybe more than you think.

What Are You Implying?

In Yoo Design Services Ltd v Iliv Realty PTE Ltd the Court of Appeal has, once again, shown itself to be averse to exercising the ‘extraordinary power’ to intervene in a contract by implying a term in anything other than the most clear-cut cases. While it is understandable that claimants, in the absence of any helpful express terms, make claims based on the implication of terms, a party doing so must appreciate the height of the hurdle to be cleared.  

Resolving Exclusion Confusion

In its hotly anticipated judgment in Soteria Insurance Limited (formerly CIS General Insurance Limited) v IBM United Kingdom Limited the Court of Appeal of England and Wales has reaffirmed that the courts should apply the conventional rules of contractual interpretation to exclusion clauses: if parties intend to exclude a particular type of loss, they should use clear and unambiguous language to do so.

Scope of Reasonable Endeavours Obligations in Force Majeure Clauses

In an important and timely judgment in MUR Shipping BV v RTI Ltd, the High Court of England and Wales has provided guidance as to the scope of a ‘reasonable endeavours’ obligation in the context of a force majeure clause triggered by the imposition of sanctions. In short, a party subject to such an obligation is not required to accept non-contractual performance to circumvent the effect of a force majeure event.