UK: The Best Of Intentions: Contract Formation Under Letters Of Intent

In the fast-paced world of construction projects, letters of intent are a common feature of the contractual landscape. So what happens if the formal contract being negotiated is never entered into? We take a brief look at some of the approaches the Courts have taken in light of a recent decision of the Court of Appeal.

To view the article in full, please see below:

Full Article

Where a building project is time-critical (as it often is) and contractual negotiations are ongoing, it is common for parties to enter into a letter of intent ("LOI") to enable the Contractor to commence work before the contract proper has been finalised. The form and content of LOIs are as varied as the circumstances in which they may be issued.No doubt it is this variety that led Robert Goff J in British Steel Corp v Cleveland Bridge and Engineering Co Ltd (1984) to observe that there is "no hard and fast answer to the question whether a letter of intent will give rise to a binding agreement: everything must depend on the circumstances of the particular case."

British Steel

British Steel concerned negotiations between British Steel Corp ("BSC") and Cleveland Bridge and Engineering ("CBE") for the sale of steel nodes to be manufactured and delivered by BSC.

  • CBE issued a LOI, which stated the price and proposed contractual terms (in the form of the I.C.E. standard form sub-contract)
  • The LOI requested that BSC proceed with the work "pending the preparation and issuing to you of the official form of sub-contract"
  • Disagreements subsequently arose between the parties in relation to the price and other contractual conditions. In particular, BSC proposed its own standard conditions, which contained a limitation of liability for late delivery (under the I.C.E. conditions, liability was unlimited). Although these disagreements were never resolved, BSC went ahead with production and delivery of the nodes
  • CBE refused to pay for the nodes, instead claiming damages for late delivery

Robert Goff J considered that a LOI could potentially give rise to 2 different types of contract. However, the judge rejected both on the basis that the LOI in question applied "pending a formal sub-contract the terms of which were still in a state of negotiation". (It was no doubt significant that agreement had not yet been reached on a number of terms which, on the facts of the case, were found by the judge to be essential).
Accordingly the Court found that no contract had been concluded and CBE, as the party who had made the request for performance, was obliged to pay BSC a reasonable sum for BSC's performance in accordance with that request. In arriving at this conclusion, the Court appears to have been particularly swayed by the fact that both parties were pedalling their standard conditions, which each took vastly different approaches to liability for delay.

In such circumstances, Robert Goff J held that it was "impossible to predicate what liability (if any)" BSC would have assumed, and it would therefore be "an extraordinary result" for him to find that, in acting on CBE's request that works be carried out before the anticipated formal contract had been finalised, BSC had assumed a level of liability it would never have agreed to under the contract proper.


Trentham v Archital Luxfer Ltd (1993) did not concern a LOI, but it is an interesting case on contract formation, as it concerned a fully performed and paid sub-contract

  • Archital was a sub-contractor for the manufacture, supply and installation of windows.
  • Trentham was being pursued under the main contract for delays and defects and sought to recover in turn from its sub-contractors, including Archital.
  • Archital argued that no sub-contract had ever come into existence.
  • The trial judge analysed the facts on the basis of offer and acceptance, and found that it had (all undecided issues being held inessential on the facts).

On appeal, the Court stated that a contract could be concluded by conduct, and that the commercial character of the transaction should be considered. In particular, the Court stated that this was not a contract where there had been a continuing stipulation that a contract would only come into existence if in writing, and that all "obstacles to contract formation" had been removed in the course of the negotiations and performance.

Accordingly, while agreeing with the trial judge's "offer and acceptance" analysis, the Court of Appeal would have been satisfied to hold that a contract (in the circumstances of "this fully executed transaction") had come into existence on the basis of the parties' performance alone.The Court held that this contract impliedly governed pre-contractual performance as well; thus the fact that it had not arisen until the work had been partially executed and paid for was no difficulty.

RTS v Müller

British Steel and Trentham recently came under the microscope in the case of RTS v Müller, which concerned negotiations between the parties in respect of equipment for collating and flow wrapping Müller yoghurt multi-packs.

  • While negotiations were ongoing, RTS commenced work under a LOI with a set expiry date (which was subsequently extended several times)
  • The LOI broadly stated the scope of the project, the price and date for completion, and confirmed Müller's wish to proceed with the project subject to (among other things) a requirement that "the full contractual terms" would be based on Müller's amended form of MF/1 contract and that full terms and specifications would be "finalised, agreed and then signed" within 4 weeks of the date of the LOI
  • Upon expiry of the extended LOI date, the parties had largely agreed the MF/1 conditions, but not the accompanying schedules. Despite this, RTS continued to build and deliver the equipment and was partially paid for it

The trial judge, applying the "commercial" considerations in Trentham, held that, the contract having been largely executed, it would be unrealistic to suppose the parties had not intended to create legal relations. He held that the parties had agreed that RTS would carry out the "agreed work" (which the trial judge held was embodied in a number of documents forming part of the MF/1 schedules) for the "agreed price" (stated in the LOI), and that it was "not essential for them to have agreed the terms and conditions and they did not do so".

The trial judge declined to find that the contract between the parties included the MF/1 conditions on the basis that (1) the LOI and other correspondence indicated that the final MF/1 terms were not to be contractually agreed until signed; (2) the MF/1 conditions and the schedules were meant to operate as a "composite whole" and a number of the schedules had not been agreed; (3) the parties had not adhered to the MF/1 conditions in practice; and (4) clause 48 of the MF/1 conditions prevented the contract from becoming effective until signature and exchange of counterparts.

The Court of Appeal reversed the trial judge's decision, holding that no contract had been concluded after expiry of the LOI. The writing stipulation in clause 48 of the MF/1 was central to this decision. The Court held that the "contract" expressed to be subject to writing in that clause included the schedules, and that the parties' negotiations were conducted on the basis of that stipulation; accordingly the Court applied British Steel (and distinguished Trentham, which had expressly declared itself not to be a case in which the formation of a contract was subject to writing).

A deciding factor in the Court's decision appears to have been the fact that the parties had agreed to a limitation of liability under the MF/1 conditions and that the trial judge, in ignoring this and finding a contract concluded on the basis of conduct alone, had brought about the "extraordinary result" contemplated by British Steel, and "achieved a bargain neither side intended to enter into".


RTS v Müller serves as a timely reminder that the intentions of the parties will be the paramount consideration in the question of contract formation. While it is acknowledged that LOIs play a useful role in many construction projects, the above cases demonstrate the importance of making their effect clear (both in themselves, and as to the contract still being negotiated).

The outcome in RTS v Müller demonstrates that where the Court feels that to find there was a contract concluded by conduct would achieve a bargain at odds with the intentions of the parties, and where there are obstacles to finding the contract under negotiation to apply (for example, the presence of a writing stipulation or failure to agree essential terms), it will be reluctant to find a contract at all. Thus, as ever, these cases remind us of the desirability for parties to reach agreement on essential terms and conditions early in the project, rather than hoping that significant differences (such as each party's take on liability) will resolve themselves during the course of the project.

Reference: RTS Flexible Systems Ltd v Molkerei Alois Műller GmbH & Co KG [2009] EWCA Civ 26

This article was written for Law-Now, CMS Cameron McKenna's free online information service. To register for Law-Now, please go to

Law-Now information is for general purposes and guidance only. The information and opinions expressed in all Law-Now articles are not necessarily comprehensive and do not purport to give professional or legal advice. All Law-Now information relates to circumstances prevailing at the date of its original publication and may not have been updated to reflect subsequent developments.

The original publication date for this article was 06/03/2009.

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 Topics
Related Articles
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
Registration (you must scroll down to set your data preferences)

Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including your content preferences, for three primary purposes (full details of Mondaq’s use of your personal data can be found in our Privacy and Cookies Notice):

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting to show content ("Content") relevant to your interests.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, news alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our content providers ("Contributors") who contribute Content for free for your use.

Mondaq hopes that our registered users will support us in maintaining our free to view business model by consenting to our use of your personal data as described below.

Mondaq has a "free to view" business model. Our services are paid for by Contributors in exchange for Mondaq providing them with access to information about who accesses their content. Once personal data is transferred to our Contributors they become a data controller of this personal data. They use it to measure the response that their articles are receiving, as a form of market research. They may also use it to provide Mondaq users with information about their products and services.

Details of each Contributor to which your personal data will be transferred is clearly stated within the Content that you access. For full details of how this Contributor will use your personal data, you should review the Contributor’s own Privacy Notice.

Please indicate your preference below:

Yes, I am happy to support Mondaq in maintaining its free to view business model by agreeing to allow Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors whose Content I access
No, I do not want Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors

Also please let us know whether you are happy to receive communications promoting products and services offered by Mondaq:

Yes, I am happy to received promotional communications from Mondaq
No, please do not send me promotional communications from Mondaq
Terms & Conditions (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd (Mondaq). Mondaq grants you a non-exclusive, revocable licence to access the Website and associated services, such as the Mondaq News Alerts (Services), subject to and in consideration of your compliance with the following terms and conditions of use (Terms). Your use of the Website and/or Services constitutes your agreement to the Terms. Mondaq may terminate your use of the Website and Services if you are in breach of these Terms or if Mondaq decides to terminate the licence granted hereunder for any reason whatsoever.

Use of

To Use you must be: eighteen (18) years old or over; legally capable of entering into binding contracts; and not in any way prohibited by the applicable law to enter into these Terms in the jurisdiction which you are currently located.

You may use the Website as an unregistered user, however, you are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the Content or to receive the Services.

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 or with the prior written consent of Mondaq. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information from the Content. Nor shall you extract information about users or Contributors in order to offer them any services or products.

In your use of the Website and/or Services you shall: comply with all applicable laws, regulations, directives and legislations which apply to your Use of the Website and/or Services in whatever country you are physically located including without limitation any and all consumer law, export control laws and regulations; provide to us true, correct and accurate information and promptly inform us in the event that any information that you have provided to us changes or becomes inaccurate; notify Mondaq immediately of any circumstances where you have reason to believe that any Intellectual Property Rights or any other rights of any third party may have been infringed; co-operate with reasonable security or other checks or requests for information made by Mondaq from time to time; and at all times be fully liable for the breach of any of these Terms by a third party using your login details to access the Website and/or Services

however, you shall not: do anything likely to impair, interfere with or damage or cause harm or distress to any persons, or the network; do anything that will infringe any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights of Mondaq or any third party; or use the Website, Services and/or Content otherwise than in accordance with these Terms; use any trade marks or service marks of Mondaq or the Contributors, or do anything which may be seen to take unfair advantage of the reputation and goodwill of Mondaq or the Contributors, or the Website, Services and/or Content.

Mondaq reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to take any action that it deems necessary and appropriate in the event it considers that there is a breach or threatened breach of the Terms.

Mondaq’s Rights and Obligations

Unless otherwise expressly set out to the contrary, nothing in these Terms shall serve to transfer from Mondaq to you, any Intellectual Property Rights owned by and/or licensed to Mondaq and all rights, title and interest in and to such Intellectual Property Rights will remain exclusively with Mondaq and/or its licensors.

Mondaq shall use its reasonable endeavours to make the Website and Services available to you at all times, but we cannot guarantee an uninterrupted and fault free service.

Mondaq reserves the right to make changes to the services and/or the Website or part thereof, from time to time, and we may add, remove, modify and/or vary any elements of features and functionalities of the Website or the services.

Mondaq also reserves the right from time to time to monitor your Use of the Website and/or services.


The Content is general information only. It is not intended to constitute legal advice or seek to be the complete and comprehensive statement of the law, nor is it intended to address your specific requirements or provide advice on which reliance should be placed. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the Content for any purpose. All Content provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers hereby exclude and disclaim all representations, warranties or guarantees with regard to the Content, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. To the maximum extent permitted by law, Mondaq expressly excludes all representations, warranties, obligations, and liabilities arising out of or in connection with all Content. In no event shall Mondaq 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 of the Content or performance of Mondaq’s Services.


Mondaq may alter or amend these Terms by amending them on the Website. By continuing to Use the Services and/or the Website after such amendment, you will be deemed to have accepted any amendment to these Terms.

These Terms shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of England and Wales and you irrevocably submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of England and Wales to settle any dispute which may arise out of or in connection with these Terms. If you live outside the United Kingdom, English law shall apply only to the extent that English law shall not deprive you of any legal protection accorded in accordance with the law of the place where you are habitually resident ("Local Law"). In the event English law deprives you of any legal protection which is accorded to you under Local Law, then these terms shall be governed by Local Law and any dispute or claim arising out of or in connection with these Terms shall be subject to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the courts where you are habitually resident.

You may print and keep a copy of these Terms, which form the entire agreement between you and Mondaq and supersede any other communications or advertising in respect of the Service and/or the Website.

No delay in exercising or non-exercise by you and/or Mondaq of any of its rights under or in connection with these Terms shall operate as a waiver or release of each of your or Mondaq’s right. Rather, any such waiver or release must be specifically granted in writing signed by the party granting it.

If any part of these Terms is held unenforceable, that part shall be enforced to the maximum extent permissible so as to give effect to the intent of the parties, and the Terms shall continue in full force and effect.

Mondaq shall not incur any liability to you on account of any loss or damage resulting from any delay or failure to perform all or any part of these Terms if such delay or failure is caused, in whole or in part, by events, occurrences, or causes beyond the control of Mondaq. Such events, occurrences or causes will include, without limitation, acts of God, strikes, lockouts, server and network failure, riots, acts of war, earthquakes, fire and explosions.

By clicking Register you state you have read and agree to our Terms and Conditions