UK: Supreme Court In Contract Crunch Corner

Last Updated: 25 August 2010
Article by Paul Stone and Nick Mitchell

Would you commence work under a commercial agreement before finalising a written contract?

Paul Stone and Nick Mitchel comment on a recent Supreme Court decision which highlights the perils

RTS Flexible Systems Limited v Molkerei Alois Müller Gmbh & Company KG (UK Production) ("RTS v Müller") [2010] UKSC 14, 10 March 2010

Starting to perform a commercial arrangement before a formal contract has been concluded, relying only on draft contractual documents or a letter of intent and an "understanding" that a binding deal will be done as soon as possible, is always messy and highly risky if no final deal is concluded. Despite this, the volume of cases of this type continues to flow unabated, as commercial realities force contractors and their clients to start work to meet a deadline or take advantage of a window of opportunity before contractual niceties have been finalised.

Historically, the courts have tried to make sense of the situation by constructing a contract from the parties' conduct and implying into it the key terms based on the main pre-contract documents relied on by the parties in their negotiations. However, the viability of such an approach was thrown into real doubt by the decision of the Court of Appeal in RTS v Müller, which decided that a clause in draft contractual documents to the effect that no contract could be concluded until both parties had formally executed the contract (which had not happened) nonetheless prevented the creation of any contract based on the draft documents. The court effectively gave contractual force to the very clause which sought to block a contract being created. A paradoxical result if ever there was one.

Fortunately, the Supreme Court has now overturned that decision, on terms which avoid the real conceptual uncertainty created by the Court of Appeal but still exposes parties to considerable risk and uncertainty where work is started on a project before a binding contract has been concluded.


RTS Flexible Systems Limited ("RTS") successfully bid to supply an automated packaging system for the wellknown dairy product company Molkerei Alois Müller Gmbh & Company KG ("Müller"), for the purposes of assembling multipacks of yoghurt.

The parties entered into a binding letter of intent dated 21 February 2005, under which RTS were to begin work on the basis that Müller had the right to cancel and to pay only expenses and cancellation costs up to the date of determination of the letter, if by then no concluded contract had been executed. The letter of intent stated that the eventual contract would be based on Müller's amended form of MF/1 contract. MF/1 is a model form of contract produced by the Institution of Engineering and Technology for use in the engineering industry. The letter of intent was renewed from time to time, but eventually expired on 27 May 2005.

By 25 May 2005 a form of draft contract had been largely agreed between the parties. The agreed section of the contract contained Müller's version of the MF/1 terms.

These contained limitations on the contractor's liability and liquidated damages provisions. They also included a "counterparts" clause at Clause 48 which stated:

"the Contract may be executed in any number of counterparts provided that it shall not become effective until each party has executed a counterpart and exchanged it with the other"

For reasons not explored at length in the judgment, a dispute subsequently arose and negotiations broke down after the expiry of the letter of intent but before a formal contract based on the draft had been finalised and executed.

Clauses like Clause 48 are of value not in the context of cases where contractual performance has already started as in this case, but because they re-emphasise and act as a statement of intent that all negotiations between the parties are "subject to contract". Hence where a final contract is not concluded it is far harder for either party to run the argument that a binding contract had already been agreed orally and/or in correspondence and therefore that the executed contract was simply confirmatory of a "done deal".

The clause is included in the contract so that the precontractual intention not to be bound until the contract is actually finally signed is clear and that any attempt to try to construe a contract in any other way is blocked. This makes complete sense so long as the parties don't actually start to perform. In a case where there is a letter of intent which contemplates that the parties will start to perform, the scope for future confusion is clear.


The main issues in dispute were:

  • was there a binding contract between the parties following the expiry of the letter of intent?
  • if so, what form did that contract take?

These issues were of immediate practical importance to the parties in determining which terms applied, if any, dealing with payment of the contractor and limiting its potential liability.


Both parties submitted that there was some form of contract:

  • Müller argued that the letter of intent had expired and that the contract comprised certain documents and schedules which had been agreed upon.
  • RTS submitted that the letter of intent continued to be in force and that its terms governed the relationship. Alternatively they submitted that any contract incorporated the MF/1 conditions.

The judge at first instance held that the continuation of work after the expiry of the letter of intent gave rise to the presumption that a contract of some form was in place. This is the classic analysis, but the real uncertainty that arises then is what terms are to be implied into such a contract, as by definition the parties have not actually committed themselves to the terms of the actual contract they were negotiating. This is where the real element of risk arises which will depend on an analysis of what the parties had actually agreed up to that point in their negotiations and also what had been agreed on the ground between the people responsible for the delivery of the contract (in many cases two very different things).

In this case the judge decided that the parties had concluded a contract without the inclusion of the MF/1 Terms, which were excluded by virtue of Clause 48. The actual contract that came into effect comprised certain documents in detailed schedules which had been agreed.


RTS appealed the preliminary decision. However, they changed their position between the first instance decision and the appeal. Whereas in the High Court they had argued that the letter of intent continued to apply or alternatively that another contract existed comprising the MF/1 terms, in the Court of Appeal they argued that no contract had come into existence at all following the expiry of the letter of intent.

The Court of Appeal concluded that the first instance decision was wrong, in that Clause 48 did not just prevent the contract including the MF/1 Terms, it actually operated to prevent a contract coming into effect at all.

The judge at first instance was wrong to impose a contract in terms that had never been agreed by the parties, in circumstances where the basis of the draft contract was that no contract came into place unless agreed in writing:

"By simply selecting the schedules he achieved a bargain neither had entered into."

No contract of any type came into existence following the termination of the letter of intent. In the absence of a contract, RTS would be entitled to recover on a quantum meruit basis ("the amount he deserves") for the work done during this time and their liability would be limited to the amount of money that had been paid.

In a nutshell, the Court of Appeal gave overriding contractual effect to Clause 48. In essence there was a "pre-contract" between the parties where they had agreed to negotiate subject to the pre-condition in Clause 48. In a case like this such an analysis might have had more merit if the clause had been included in the letter of intent and had been expressed to survive the termination of that letter.


The Supreme Court overturned the decision of the Court of Appeal, but did not revert entirely to the decision of the judge at first instance. The Supreme Court agreed with the original judgment that the conduct of the parties showed that there was a clear intent to create legal relations. A binding contract had been created.

However, the conduct of the parties also demonstrated that they had agreed to waive the need for a formal written contract as set out in Clause 48:

"The clear inference is that the parties had agreed to waive the subject to contract clause, viz clause 48. Any other conclusion makes no commercial sense."

Commonsense says that this must be right. Not only had a contract been agreed, but it was on wider terms than those set out by the judge, including the MF/1 terms. Crucially for RTS, this meant that the contract which had been agreed included the limitation on liability set out in the MF/1 conditions.


The decision of the Supreme Court overturns the central element of the ruling by the Court of Appeal. The Supreme Court disagreed that a term in a draft contract which requires a fully-executed contract to exist could operate to prevent a binding contract coming into existence, where that term does not itself have contractual effect.

It may depend on the facts but it is to be hoped that the decision will prevent such a counterparts clause acting as a complete bar to a contract coming into effect. The decision is a sensible and practical one, especially in the application of the "reasonable, honest businessman" test:

"If one applies the standard of the reasonable, honest businessman suggested by Steyn LJ, we conclude that, whether he was an RTS man or a Müller man, he would have concluded that the parties intended that the work be carried out for the agreed price on the agreed terms [...] without the necessity for a formal written agreement, which had been overtaken by events."

However whatever decision a court will come to as to the existence (and terms) of any contract agreed between the parties will be very dependent on the facts:

"Whether in such a case the parties agreed to enter into a binding contract, waiving reliance on the 'subject to [written] contract' term or understanding will again depend upon all the circumstances of the case, although the cases show that the court will not lightly so hold."

Until a written contract is concluded, any work done by a contractor for an employer is performed against a background of considerable risk and uncertainty for both parties. The level of payment and any limitation of liability may or may not be agreed.

In RTS v Müller, three different courts reached three different conclusions as to whether a contract existed and the terms of that contract. It remains an important illustration of the need to finalise written contracts and to be sure of the contractual position before work begins.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

In association with
Related Video
Up-coming Events Search
Font Size:
Mondaq on Twitter
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).
Email Address
Company Name
Confirm Password
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Media & IT
 Real Estate
 Wealth Mgt
Asia Pacific
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
United States
Worldwide Updates
Check to state you have read and
agree to our Terms and Conditions

Terms & Conditions and Privacy Statement (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd and as a user you are granted a non-exclusive, revocable license to access the Website under its terms and conditions of use. Your use of the Website constitutes your agreement to the following terms and conditions of use. Mondaq Ltd may terminate your use of the Website if you are in breach of these terms and conditions or if Mondaq Ltd decides to terminate your license of use for whatever reason.

Use of

You may use the Website but are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the content and articles available (the Content). You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these terms & conditions or with the prior written consent of Mondaq Ltd. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information about’s content, users or contributors in order to offer them any services or products which compete directly or indirectly with Mondaq Ltd’s services and products.


Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the documents and related graphics published on this server for any purpose. All such documents and related graphics are provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers hereby disclaim all warranties and conditions with regard to this information, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. In no event shall Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use or performance of information available from this server.

The documents and related graphics published on this server could include technical inaccuracies or typographical errors. Changes are periodically added to the information herein. Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers may make improvements and/or changes in the product(s) and/or the program(s) described herein at any time.


Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including what sort of information you are interested in, for three primary purposes:

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, newsletter alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our information providers who provide information free for your use.

Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) do not sell or provide your details to third parties other than information providers. The reason we provide our information providers with this information is so that they can measure the response their articles are receiving and provide you with information about their products and services.

If you do not want us to provide your name and email address you may opt out by clicking here .

If you do not wish to receive any future announcements of products and services offered by Mondaq by clicking here .

Information Collection and Use

We require site users to register with Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to view the free information on the site. We also collect information from our users at several different points on the websites: this is so that we can customise the sites according to individual usage, provide 'session-aware' functionality, and ensure that content is acquired and developed appropriately. This gives us an overall picture of our user profiles, which in turn shows to our Editorial Contributors the type of person they are reaching by posting articles on Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) – meaning more free content for registered users.

We are only able to provide the material on the Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) site free to site visitors because we can pass on information about the pages that users are viewing and the personal information users provide to us (e.g. email addresses) to reputable contributing firms such as law firms who author those pages. We do not sell or rent information to anyone else other than the authors of those pages, who may change from time to time. Should you wish us not to disclose your details to any of these parties, please tick the box above or tick the box marked "Opt out of Registration Information Disclosure" on the Your Profile page. We and our author organisations may only contact you via email or other means if you allow us to do so. Users can opt out of contact when they register on the site, or send an email to with “no disclosure” in the subject heading

Mondaq News Alerts

In order to receive Mondaq News Alerts, users have to complete a separate registration form. This is a personalised service where users choose regions and topics of interest and we send it only to those users who have requested it. Users can stop receiving these Alerts by going to the Mondaq News Alerts page and deselecting all interest areas. In the same way users can amend their personal preferences to add or remove subject areas.


A cookie is a small text file written to a user’s hard drive that contains an identifying user number. The cookies do not contain any personal information about users. We use the cookie so users do not have to log in every time they use the service and the cookie will automatically expire if you do not visit the Mondaq website (or its affiliate sites) for 12 months. We also use the cookie to personalise a user's experience of the site (for example to show information specific to a user's region). As the Mondaq sites are fully personalised and cookies are essential to its core technology the site will function unpredictably with browsers that do not support cookies - or where cookies are disabled (in these circumstances we advise you to attempt to locate the information you require elsewhere on the web). However if you are concerned about the presence of a Mondaq cookie on your machine you can also choose to expire the cookie immediately (remove it) by selecting the 'Log Off' menu option as the last thing you do when you use the site.

Some of our business partners may use cookies on our site (for example, advertisers). However, we have no access to or control over these cookies and we are not aware of any at present that do so.

Log Files

We use IP addresses to analyse trends, administer the site, track movement, and gather broad demographic information for aggregate use. IP addresses are not linked to personally identifiable information.


This web site contains links to other sites. Please be aware that Mondaq (or its affiliate sites) are not responsible for the privacy practices of such other sites. We encourage our users to be aware when they leave our site and to read the privacy statements of these third party sites. This privacy statement applies solely to information collected by this Web site.

Surveys & Contests

From time-to-time our site requests information from users via surveys or contests. Participation in these surveys or contests is completely voluntary and the user therefore has a choice whether or not to disclose any information requested. Information requested may include contact information (such as name and delivery address), and demographic information (such as postcode, age level). Contact information will be used to notify the winners and award prizes. Survey information will be used for purposes of monitoring or improving the functionality of the site.


If a user elects to use our referral service for informing a friend about our site, we ask them for the friend’s name and email address. Mondaq stores this information and may contact the friend to invite them to register with Mondaq, but they will not be contacted more than once. The friend may contact Mondaq to request the removal of this information from our database.


This website takes every reasonable precaution to protect our users’ information. When users submit sensitive information via the website, your information is protected using firewalls and other security technology. If you have any questions about the security at our website, you can send an email to

Correcting/Updating Personal Information

If a user’s personally identifiable information changes (such as postcode), or if a user no longer desires our service, we will endeavour to provide a way to correct, update or remove that user’s personal data provided to us. This can usually be done at the “Your Profile” page or by sending an email to

Notification of Changes

If we decide to change our Terms & Conditions or Privacy Policy, we will post those changes on our site so our users are always aware of what information we collect, how we use it, and under what circumstances, if any, we disclose it. If at any point we decide to use personally identifiable information in a manner different from that stated at the time it was collected, we will notify users by way of an email. Users will have a choice as to whether or not we use their information in this different manner. We will use information in accordance with the privacy policy under which the information was collected.

How to contact Mondaq

You can contact us with comments or queries at

If for some reason you believe Mondaq Ltd. has not adhered to these principles, please notify us by e-mail at and we will use commercially reasonable efforts to determine and correct the problem promptly.