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.
In another example of the court embracing technology in the furtherance of access to justice, the High Court of England and Wales has permitted service by way of a non-fungible token.
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.
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.
Battles of forms create intolerable uncertainty regarding the contractual basis of trading relationships. Companies concerned that their own carefully drafted standard terms may be trumped by a ‘last shot’ from a trading partner should take note of the recent Court of Appeal of England and Wales’ judgment in TRW Limited v Panasonic Industry Europe GmbH & Another.