UK: Commercial Law Update - An Analysis of Cases and Developments from October 2010

Last Updated: 23 November 2010
Article by Mark Alsop

Serving Termination Notices Prematurely Does Not Necessarily Amount to Repudiatory Breach

Eminence Property Developments Limited v Heaney [2010] EWCA Civ 1168

Mr Heaney had agreed in a series of contracts to buy 13 flats from Eminence. Completion was to take place when the relevant flats were ready for occupation. Time was not to be of the essence unless a notice to complete had been served. In due course, the flats became ready for occupation, by which time the property market had turned and Heaney was unable to find finance to complete. On 5 December 2008, Eminence served notices to complete, stating that it had calculated that the final date for completion was 15 December 2008. In fact, as was common ground, the date should have been 19 December. On 17 December, Eminence's solicitors sent notices of rescission. In response, Heaney's solicitors stated that the act of rescinding the contracts on 17 December constituted repudiatory breach. Mr Heaney accepted the breach and elected to rescind the contracts himself. In due course, he brought an action for return of his deposits. The High Court held that the notices of rescission did constitute repudiatory breach by Eminence as they indicated a clear refusal to perform its future obligations under the sale contracts. Eminence appealed.

The Court of Appeal held that, on the facts, the sending of the rescission notices did not constitute repudiatory breach. It made the point that whether or not there has been a repudiatory breach is highly fact sensitive, so comparison with other cases is of limited value. All circumstances must be taken into account insofar as they bear on an objective assessment of the intention of the contract breaker. "So far as concerns repudiatory conduct, the legal test was simply whether, looking at all the circumstances objectively, that is from the perspective of a reasonable person in the position of the innocent party, the contract breaker has clearly shown an intention to abandon or altogether refused to perform the contract". The court applied the test as follows:-

  • Eminence was "ready, able and willing to complete" and so entitled to serve the notices to complete. The wording of the notice stated that the solicitors had "calculated the final date for completion as 15 December". This was clearly a calculation based on contractual provisions and not an attempt to vary the contractual provisions, or abandon them.
  • Mr Heaney's solicitors did not point out the obvious error – they lay in wait for Eminence to act on the mistake, so Mr Heaney could be fortuitously extricated from his contracts.
  • A reasonable recipient of the notice of rescission would have appreciated that, had the error been pointed out, it would immediately have been acknowledged by Eminence. This was not a case like many of those cited where the parties were maintaining different interpretations of contractual provisions.
  • It was impossible to find an intention for Eminence to abandon and altogether to refuse to perform the contracts which, in view of the state of the market, had become highly advantageous to it and onerous to Mr Heaney. On the contrary, the obvious inference was that Mr Heaney was aware that Eminence very much wanted to enforce the contracts.
  • The rescission notices, far from clearly indicating an intention to abandon the contracts, showed an intention to implement the contractual procedure for bringing the contracts to an end.

Many will be relieved to see the Court of Appeal refrain from insisting on perfection in relation to notices to terminate a contract which has been repudiated by the other party.

Acceptance of Repudiation Depends on the Facts

Force India Formula One Team Limited v Etihad Airways PJSC [2010] EWC Civ 1051.

The High Court decision was reported in Bulletin 59 for November 2009.

Spyker owned and operated a Formula 1 motor racing team. In early 2007, just before the Australian Grand Prix, it found a title sponsor in the form of Etihad (an Abu Dhabi airline) and entered into a 3 year sponsorship agreement with it. The agreement provided that Spyker would not enter into any sponsorship that might conflict with Etihad's activities. Spyker had the right to source an alternative team sponsor, but, if it did so, Etihad would have the right to terminate. Etihad could terminate for breach as long as it gave Spyker 10 days to remedy the breach.

Shares in Spyker were then sold to Force India who took over the team. The team changed its name to Force India and set about creating a strong affiliation with India. Force India's owners had an interest in a company called Kingfisher which owned and operated an airline of that name. For the winter testing season, the livery on the cars was changed and a Kingfisher's logo placed on the cars. It was disputed whether Etihad's approval to the change had been given. By November 13 2007, Etihad knew about all the matters subsequently relied on as relevant to repudiatory breach of contract. It called for a meeting with Force India to discuss the situation which took place in mid-December. Force India followed up with proposals which did not arrive until mid-January 2008. At the end of January, Etihad terminated the contract for material breach. Force India denied that it had committed any material breaches, but even if it had, Etihad had waived the breaches and affirmed the contract by its delay.

The High Court found in favour of Force India. Force India had told Etihad that the Kingfisher logo would be on the car, and the only concern raised by Etihad had been that it should not include a reference to the Kingfisher airline. In any event, limited use of the new livery was not a material breach. Even if it had been, the breach was remediable, in that Force India merely needed to remove the logo. Etihad should have given notice requiring the breaches to be remedied. Evidence showed that Etihad had waived or acquiesced in Force India's association with the airline (which was potentially a breach of the obligation not to undertake any arrangement which might conflict with Etihad's main activities). Etihad had therefore wrongfully terminated the agreement. Etihad appealed.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and held that Etihad's conduct did not amount to affirmation of the contract. Rebranding to Force India amounted to a series of repeated breaches of the agreement by Force India as the connection to Abu Dhabi and the sponsoring companies had been lost. Force India had ridden roughshod over all Etihad's contractual rights without making any attempt to seek Etihad's involvement and co-operation. These breaches were not remediable – Force India had rebranded the team to appeal to Indian market and the message would have been greatly weakened if the name of Etihad were to be included. And in any event it was plain that Force India would have not been prepared to reverse its new branding, if asked. Etihad's behaviour did not, in the circumstances, amount to affirmation. Timing of the transaction was of great importance – delay in terminating may amount to affirmation where the party in breach requires a decision urgently, e.g. if a seller needs to know if the buyer has accepted goods delivered. In this case, there was no urgency as the meetings happened between racing seasons.

The case does demonstrate that it may be possible to a certain extent to reserve one's position before deciding whether to terminate a contract. But a reservation will not give unlimited protection, especially if an urgent answer is required by the party in breach. The innocent party would be wise to say how much time will be needed for consideration; the breaching party would be wise to set a deadline for termination, explaining why the deadline is appropriate.

Contract Interpreted in Accordance with its Commercial Purpose - Again

HHY Luxembourg SARL v Barclays Bank plc & Others [2010] EWCA

This dispute was between a security trustee, Barclays, and senior lenders on the one side and junior lenders on the other. It concerned Barclays' rights under an inter-creditor agreement. The borrower was the European Directories Group. It ran into financial difficulties which resulted in a complicated restructuring. The point at issue was whether, on the sale of the shares of a group company ("X"), the inter-creditor agreement permitted Barclays to release, without consent of the junior lenders, not only the guarantees and securities granted by X (clearly permitted) but also those granted by its subsidiaries which were also obligors within the meaning of the inter-creditor agreement. If the consent of junior lenders was required, they could essentially block any sale.

The High Court held that the reference in the agreement to release in relation to the "obligor or any holding company" was plainly to the obligor or holding company whose shares were being disposed of, not to other obligors whose shares were not being disposed of. If subsidiary obligors were to be included, the use of the defined term "Subsidiary" could have been used. Overall, it did not flout commonsense to say that the clause provided for a very limited level of release of securities on the sale of shares. This interpretation essentially turned round the positions of senior and junior lenders and caused some considerable concern in the City.

The Court of Appeal overturned the High Court's decision. The judge had applied too literal an approach to the wording. That wording should be read as permitting Barclays to release not only the guarantees and security provided by X, but also those provided by other obligors whose shares were not being sold but which were subsidiaries of X. This was the most natural interpretation in the context of the agreement and made commonsense. It was also the interpretation that made more sense in the commercial context as otherwise the sales would result in even less money for creditors.

The case will be noted in more detail in an article in Charles Russell's forthcoming Banking and Finance Update.

This Court of Appeal decision continues the trend of the recent cases such as Chartbrook v Persimmon and re: Sigma Finance, where the Supreme Court adopted the most purposive interpretation of disputed wording, upholding what the parties must have intended, rather than what a literal reading might say. Whilst that might be a good thing commercially, it does create uncertainty over reliance on contract wording, even when drafted by specialist City lawyers. This case demonstrates, again, the need to be careful and clear with drafting.

Analysis of Equitable Set-Off

Gary Fearns (t/a Autopaint International) v Anglo-Dutch Paint & Chemical Co Ltd [2010] EWHC 2366 (CH)

Mr Fearns, trading as Autopaint International, supplied paint for cars under the Autopaint brand through his shops and franchises. The paint was purchased from ADPC. Mr Fearns brought an action against ADPC for damages on the grounds that ADPC had been supplying Autopaint-branded paint directly to Fearns' franchises. ADPC counter-claimed for unpaid sums due. At trial, the High Court (Mr G Leggatt QC) made an order that ADPC pay damages of £438,569 and Mr Fearns pay the debt of €594,696. The question which remained were the treatment of interest on sums due and whether the currency conversion should take place on the date of the claim (2005) or the date of judgment (2010). The currencies had moved sufficiently since 2005 that it made a difference as to who was to be the net payee.

The judge decided that the term set off was confusing because it had no uniform meaning, so he examined the case law and came up with the following principles:

  • Where a party has a claim against another who has a cross-claim, the two claims cannot be netted off so as to extinguish each liability except by agreement or by a court judgment, and then only once both liabilities have been established by agreement or a judgment.
  • Where the two claims are for specific and certain sums of money, each party can use legal set-off to raise a defence to the extent of its own claim in proceedings brought by the other.
  • Where the two claims are made reasonably and in good faith and are so closely connected that it would be manifestly unjust to allow enforcement of one claim without taking the other into account, an equitable set-off arises as an immediate answer to a liability to pay money otherwise due. However, equitable set-off does not extinguish or reduce liability, but merely prevents each party from enforcing its claim while the other subsists.
  • The court has jurisdiction to order, in its discretion, a judgment sum to be set-off against any other judgment sum. The date of such a set-off is the date on which the existence and amount of the two liabilities is established.
  • Where the amounts are payable in different currencies, the approach is to add to each principal amount any interest at the relevant rate accruing up to the date of set-off and then to convert the smaller amount into the currency of the larger amount at the exchange rate prevailing at that date.

The interest rates awarded on the two amounts were different. Interest on the Euro debt was set at 1.5% over the ECB rate during the relevant period. Interest on the sterling damages award was set at 5% over BoE base rate. The margin was higher because Mr Fearns' cost of borrowing was higher.

With these particular numbers, Fearns lost out due to the currency fluctuations. The court did not believe that this showed the law was defective. It was up to Mr Fearns to claim a loss for those fluctuations, which he could only do if he could have shown that he would have paid his debt but for existence of a cross-claim which was the subject of a valid set off. Otherwise, the other party will not be held liable for a fall in the exchange rate.

There have been a stream of cases recently on set off, mostly on equitable set off. They have clarified the law considerably.

Take Care When Amending an Agreement

Ericsson Limited v Hutchison No. 3G One UK Limited [2010[ EWHC 2525(TCC)

Ericsson provided telecommunications equipment and related services to Hutchison under a master services agreement which was terminable without cause by Hutchison giving at least 12 months notice expiring not earlier than 11 December 2012. The agreement was varied several times. Hutchison gave notice in May 2010 and the question which arose was whether the exit provisions were to commence on the giving of notice and continue for 30 months until the end date or whether they were to apply only in the last 12 months of the agreement. Hutchison claimed that it needed the extra time to prepare for an orderly handover: Ericsson argued that it would be put to significant extra expense if it was subjected to the restrictions and requirements that applied during the period of the exit provisions. [Having heard the evidence the judge was sceptical that the length of the period made much difference to either party.]

The High Court (Akenhead J) considered the agreement carefully and held that the wording pointed to the exit period being no more than 12 months leading up to the end date. One of the considerations was that a deliberate distinction appeared to have been made between "expiry" and "termination". For instance, an amendment was made to the definition of "Expiry Date", but a provision in a schedule was not amended to take into account the new definition – he assumed that this was deliberate, rather than accidental – and this favoured Ericsson's interpretation.

This case perhaps demonstrates two issues. First is that great care should be taken whenever an agreement is to be amended, particularly where the definitions are changed. Secondly, the case is an example of the need to keep terminology consistent. For instance, in this case, if "expiry" and "termination" were intended to mean the same thing, only one of the two words should have been used. If both are used, the courts are likely to assume that the parties meant the terms to have different meanings.

No Term Implied That Goods Would Conform to Specification for a Reasonable Time

Article: KG Bominflot Bunkergesellsehft Für Mineraloele mbh and Co KG v Petroplus Marketing AG [2010] EWCA Civ 1145 (Comm)

The parties entered into an FOB contract under which Petroplus sold gasoil to Bominflot. There was a term that the gasoil had to meet certain specifications at the time of shipment. The gasoil was tested and found to meet the specifications. It was then loaded. When the gasoil arrived at the destination port, it no longer complied with the specifications.

There were 3 points:

  • The High Court held that S 14(2) of the SGA was to be implied to the effect that the goods would remain of satisfactory quality not just at the time of delivery, but for a reasonable time afterwards. This was not appealed by Petroplus (who instead looked to exclude liability by relying on the exclusion clause – see 3rd point).
  • The High Court implied a common-law term that the goods would remain in accordance with the specification for a reasonable time after delivery. The Court of Appeal overturned this part of the High Court's ruling. There was provision in the contract for inspection of the goods at the time of shipment, a provision that would have been rendered worthless or pointless had the goods had to conform after shipment. There was nothing to suggest or require the additional term to be implied. The intention of the contract was that the specification should be determined conclusively at loading, so it did not matter that things might change afterwards. The implied term would not have been understood by a reasonable person to have been part of the meaning of the contract.
  • The exclusion clause in the contract stated that there were no "guarantees, warranties or representations... which extend beyond the description of the oil set forth in this agreement". Bominflot argued that this did not exclude "conditions", i.e. the s 14(2) term as to satisfactory quality implied by the SGA was not excluded. Both the High Court and the Court of Appeal agreed. If the seller had wished to exclude the Section 14(2) condition, it should have said so more clearly in the exclusion clause.

Two conclusions. It not easy to establish an implied term, especially where other terms already cover a similar area. And make sure the exclusion clause is all-encompassing.

Details of Without Prejudice Negotiations Admissible When Construing Settlement Agreement

Oceanbulk Shipping and Trading v TMT Asia Limited [2010] UKSC 44

The Supreme Court was asked to consider whether evidence of without prejudice communications is admissible in the construction of a resulting settlement agreement. The High Court held that the evidence was admissible, the Court of Appeal held that it was not, and now the Supreme Court has held that the evidence is indeed admissible.

The Supreme Court said that there was no reason why ordinary principles governing the interpretation of a settlement agreement should be any different depending on whether the negotiations which led to it were without prejudice. The same reasonable person with the background knowledge test should be used. If a party to negotiations knew that objective facts which emerged during negotiations would be admitted to assist the court to interpret the agreement in accordance with the parties' true intentions, settlement was likely to be encouraged, not discouraged. Such an approach was the only way in which modern principles of construction of contracts could be property respected.

Opinions differ as to whether this outcome is or is not a good thing. On the one hand, evidence of without prejudice negotiations are already allowed for other purposes, such as rectification. On the other hand, there is an argument that without prejudice negotiations are more likely to lead to settlement if the parties are sure that disclosures will not be admissible in court. The Supreme Court did acknowledge this issue and made it clear that the exception to the admissibility was solely in order "to explain the factual matrix or surrounding circumstances to the court". The lesson is to be careful and seek advice before engaging in without prejudice negotiations – and to make sure that settlement agreements are drafted clearly in a way that will not require interpretation by the courts.

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 Mondaq.com.

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

Authors
 
In association with
Related Video
Up-coming Events Search
Tools
Print
Font Size:
Translation
Channels
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
Password
Confirm Password
Position
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Accounting
 Anti-trust
 Commercial
 Compliance
 Consumer
 Criminal
 Employment
 Energy
 Environment
 Family
 Finance
 Government
 Healthcare
 Immigration
 Insolvency
 Insurance
 International
 IP
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Litigation
 Media & IT
 Privacy
 Real Estate
 Strategy
 Tax
 Technology
 Transport
 Wealth Mgt
Regions
Africa
Asia
Asia Pacific
Australasia
Canada
Caribbean
Europe
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
U.K.
United States
Worldwide Updates
Check to state you have read and
agree to our Terms and Conditions

Terms & Conditions and Privacy Statement

Mondaq.com (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 www.mondaq.com

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 Mondaq.com’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.

Disclaimer

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.

Registration

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 unsubscribe@mondaq.com 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.

Cookies

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.

Links

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.

Mail-A-Friend

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.

Security

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 webmaster@mondaq.com.

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 EditorialAdvisor@mondaq.com.

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 enquiries@mondaq.com.

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