UK: Drafting Contracts – Key Lessons From 2018

Last Updated: 18 February 2019
Article by Julie Farley, Sarah Hawes and Sarah Pollock

In this briefing we look at the lessons to be learnt from some of the English contract law cases of 2018. With the exception of the Supreme Court ruling on a case concerning variation clauses, the cases we cover do not involve a major change in the law. However, they are all useful illustrations of key points of contract law for those drafting and managing contracts.

1. Formation and certainty of terms

Contract disputes often involve questions around formation of contract - whether a binding contract exists between the parties and whether the terms of the contract are sufficiently certain to be enforceable. There were a number of cases in 2018 which considered these issues and they all highlight the importance of having a full and clearly documented agreement in place.

Openwork Limited v Forte [2018] EWCA Civ 783

Mr Forte, a financial adviser, entered into a franchise contract with Openwork for the sale of investment products. The contract contained a clawback clause entitling Openwork to claim back a percentage of the commission which Openwork paid to Mr Forte, when an investment was withdrawn within three years. The clawback clause did not contain a set percentage or a formula for calculating this. However, it stated that the commission would be calculated by reference to the amount invested, length of time invested and amount withdrawn. When Openwork tried to enforce this clause, Mr Forte claimed that it was void for uncertainty.

At first instance, the High Court found that the clawback clause was enforceable. This was upheld by the Court of Appeal, who emphasised that "the Court should strive to give some meaning to contractual clauses agreed by the parties if it is at all possible to do so." As the parties had clearly intended the clawback clause to have the effect of Mr Forte repaying some of his commission to Openwork, the courts had to attempt to enforce it. Otherwise, the intent of the clause would be defeated. While the clause did not contain a calculation formula, it did contain the necessary detail to enable the judges to determine that the amount to be repaid by Mr Forte was a percentage of the commission which decreased over time.

Arcadis Consulting (UK) Ltd v AMEC (BCS) Ltd [2018] EWCA Civ 2222

AMEC acted as the specialist concrete sub-contractor on two large projects and instructed Arcadis to carry out certain design works in connection with those projects in anticipation of a wider agreement between the parties that did not materialise. There were wide-ranging discussions and correspondence (not marked "subject to contract") between the parties over many months and three sets of terms and conditions were proposed. Each set of proposed terms and conditions included some sort of limitation of Arcadis's liability, but on "radically different terms".

It was later alleged that one of the projects was defective. Arcadis denied liability for the defects but argued that, if it were found to be liable for the defects, there was a contract in place in respect of its design works which included a cap on its liability.

At first instance the High Court held that there was a contract between the parties pursuant to which Arcadis would carry out design work and would be paid for that work by AMEC. This was evidenced by an initial letter of instruction and by Arcadis's conduct in undertaking the work. However, the contract did not incorporate any set of terms and conditions, as no terms had been accepted by Arcadis – which, importantly, meant that its liability was uncapped, a result recognised by the judge as a harsh consequence. See our 2016 contract briefing for further details of the High Court's decision.

The Court of Appeal has now allowed Arcadis's appeal. It agreed with the judge that there was a contract, but found that it did incorporate terms and conditions including a liability cap. Even though the parties had not reached a concluded agreement on the final terms and conditions, they did agree to the interim terms which would apply pending that agreement.

Each case will turn on its facts and there are clearly risks in commencing work without a clear written agreement as to the terms that will apply on an interim basis. However the Court of Appeal decision suggests that the court may be reluctant to conclude that a party has assumed an unlimited liability for works carried out under an interim contract pending negotiation of a final agreement, when it never would have assumed such liability under that final agreement.

Morris v Swanton Care & Community Ltd [2018] EWCA Civ 2763

The earn-out schedule in a share purchase agreement provided for the seller, Mr Morris, to earn additional consideration in return for ongoing consultancy services in relation to the target company. The earn-out schedule provided that Mr Morris "shall have the option" to provide consultancy services for a period of four years after completion and "following such period such further period as shall reasonably be agreed between Mr Morris and [Swanton]".

Mr Morris supplied the relevant services for four years but Swanton rejected his request for a "reasonable extension" to the earn-out period. Mr Morris issued proceedings, claiming that he had a contractual entitlement to a further earn-out period during which he would have earned additional earn-out consideration. He argued that the wording of the relevant clause was mandatory because it provided that he "shall" have an "option" for a further period, and that his exercise of this option had been wrongly rejected by Swanton.

The High Court and the Court of Appeal both found that Mr Morris did not have an enforceable right to provide consultancy services during any earn-out period other than the initial period of four years. Insofar as the clause related to a further period, this was an unenforceable agreement to agree. Because the clause contemplated that the parties would be free to agree or disagree about any extension (even if they acted reasonably when discussing a potential extension), it was void for uncertainty.

The Court of Appeal contrasted the drafting in this case with a hypothetical clause which provided for an extension of time for a reasonable period – in that case, there would at least have been an existing agreement for a reasonable period which the courts might be able to enforce, whereas in Mr Morris's case the parties had not reached any agreement (and could not be compelled to reach any agreement) as to an extension.

Practice points – Formation

  • Whenever possible, include all essential terms in a written agreement signed by all the parties before any obligations are performed.
  • Remember that a contract may become binding, even though there are still terms to be agreed, if the parties have agreed on all the terms that are essential for the formation of legally binding relations between them.
  • Take care to avoid entering into a contract unintentionally and avoid saying anything in negotiations or correspondence which may subsequently be construed as evidence of an intention to be contractually bound.
  • Consider whether contractual terms contain sufficient detail and are sufficiently certain to be enforced, otherwise the provision may be an unenforceable agreement to agree.
  • Be aware that the courts will strive to make contracts workable so do not accept uncertain clauses on the assumption that they will not be enforceable.

2. Implied terms

This next case is a reminder of the strict approach which English courts adopt when asked to imply a term into a contract, as set out in the Supreme Court decision in Marks & Spencer Plc v BNP Paribas [2015] UKSC 72 (see our 2015 contract briefing). The Court of Appeal stressed the need to construe the express terms of the contract before considering whether a term should be implied and also the importance of not applying hindsight when determining whether to imply a term.

Robert Bou-Simon v BGC Brokers LP [2018] EWCA Civ 1525

BGC loaned £336,000 to Mr Bou-Simon, one of its employees. The loan agreement, which assumed that Mr Bou-Simon had, or would shortly, become a partner at the firm, provided that the loan was to be repaid from Mr Bou-Simon's partnership distributions and that any unpaid amounts would be written off once Mr BouSimon had served four years. An earlier draft of the agreement provided that the loan would become immediately due and payable if Mr Bou-Simon ceased to be a partner within four years. However this provision was deleted on behalf of Mr Bou-Simon during negotiations and the final agreement only required repayment in the event of an impairment of Mr Bou-Simon's creditworthiness.

Mr Bou-Simon resigned within four years and BGC claimed the repayment of the loan, arguing that there was an implied term that, if Mr Bou-Simon resigned before the four-year period ended, the loan would become immediately repayable. At first instance, the High Court ruled in favour of BGC that there was indeed such an implied term; without it, the agreement would lack commercial or practical coherence, since Mr Bou-Simon would be able to leave his employment without repaying the loan and without having made any significant contribution to BGC's business.

The Court of Appeal allowed Mr Bou-Simon's appeal. The High Court had used the correct test, as set out in the Marks & Spencer case, but it had misapplied the test. The judge had erred in that he "implied a term in order to reflect the merits of the situation as they now appear" rather than approaching the matter from the perspective of the reasonable reader of the agreement at the time it was entered into. The Court of Appeal emphasised that it is not appropriate to apply hindsight and seek to imply a term in a commercial contract simply because it appears to be fair or because it seems likely that the parties would have agreed to it had it been suggested at the time the contract was formed. In addition, the question of implied terms can be considered only after the process of construing the express terms of the contract is complete.

The Court of Appeal did not make a ruling as to the admissibility of the deletions but, in the view of one of the judges, the fact that parties were seeking to rely on wording which they had deleted from an earlier version of the agreement should be given consideration.

Practice points – Implied terms

  • Remember that English courts take a strict approach to implying terms.
  • Don't rely on the courts implying a provision into a contract – if a provision is required it should be expressly included.

3. Variation

In May 2018 the Supreme Court overturned the Court of Appeal decision in Rock v MWB [2016] EWCA Civ 553 and held that an oral variation of a contract was invalid because the contract provided for any variation to be in writing. The Court of Appeal decision (covered in our 2016 contract briefing) had caused a degree of concern among commercial parties who regularly include "written variation only" clauses in their contracts. So the Supreme Court ruling restores an element of certainty about the effect of these clauses.

The second case covered in this section (although it was heard at the end of 2017 rather than in 2018) concerns the effect of a contract amendment on liquidated damages provisions included in the original contract and highlights the need to consider fully the impact of any variation on other contractual terms.

Rock Advertising Ltd v MWB Business Exchange Centre Ltd [2018] UKSC 24

MWB operated and managed office space in central London. Rock occupied premises managed by MWB under a licence agreement which provided:

"This licence sets out all of the terms as agreed between MWB and [Rock]. No other representations or terms shall apply or form part of this licence. All variations to this licence must be agreed, set out in writing and signed on behalf of both parties before they take effect."

After taking on larger premises (at an increased fee) Rock was unable to meet the increased licence payments and incurred arrears. MWB exercised its contractual right to exclude Rock from the premises, sought to terminate the agreement and claimed the arrears. Rock counterclaimed for loss and damage suffered as a result of being, in its view, wrongfully excluded from the premises.

Central to Rock's case was its claim that an oral agreement had been made between its managing director and MWB's credit controller to reschedule its payments. The judge at first instance found, as a matter of fact, that there had been an oral agreement. However the oral agreement could not take effect because of the clause in the licence agreement requiring any amendments to be in writing.

The Court of Appeal allowed Rock's appeal and found that the oral amendment to the licence contract was effective despite the express contractual provision requiring amendments to be in writing. The Supreme Court unanimously overturned the Court of Appeal's decision, finding that the oral amendment was not effective. Lord Sumption, giving the lead judgment, pointed out that the Court of Appeal's decision meant that contracting parties could not validly bind themselves as to how future changes to their legal relations could be achieved, no matter how clearly they expressed their intention to do so. He recognised the reasons for commonly including a clause requiring variations to be in writing (now commonly referred to a "no oral modification" or "NOM" clause) in commercial contracts: (i) they prevent attempts to undermine written agreements by informal means; (ii) given that oral discussions can easily give rise to misunderstanding, they avoid disputes about whether a variation was intended; and (iii) they make it easier for corporations to police internal rules restricting authority to agree variations.

HSM Offshore SV v Aker Offshore Partner Ltd [2017] EWHC 2979

Aker employed HSM to provide pieces of kit for an oil rig in the North Sea under a contract which included a liquidated damages provision for failure to have the kit Ready for Sail Away ("RfSA") by a specified date. When it became apparent that HSM would not meet the RfSA date, the parties entered into a Memorandum of Understanding ("MoU"). The MoU did not expressly set a new RfSA date but instead stated that HSM should use its "fullest endeavours" to achieve "mechanical completion" by a given date. As required by the MoU, HSM drew up a revised programme for the project which gave a new RfSA date. There was no mention of liquidated damages in the MoU.

Aker subsequently claimed liquidated damages for HSM's failure to meet the original RfSA date or the new RfSA date specified in the revised programme. The court found that the absolute obligation to meet a particular date had been replaced by something different in the MoU. There was no longer an absolute obligation to meet any specified dates; provided that HSM used its fullest endeavours, it would not be in breach of contract, whatever the actual dates.

Practice points – Variation

  • Remember that a contract may be varied orally or by conduct, so consider including a clause requiring all variations to be in writing and specifying who may agree amendments on behalf of each party.
  • Ensure that any variations comply with the requirements of any variation clause in the original contract. In any correspondence or discussion about a potential variation, state that the variation will not take effect until it has been agreed in accordance with the variation clause.
  • Think carefully about the administration of ongoing contracts and ensure that contract management teams are aware of, and comply with, any variation provisions.
  • When agreeing a variation, pay careful attention to the effect of the proposed variation on other provisions of the contract.

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.

Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
In association with
Related Topics
Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
Related Articles
Related Video
Up-coming Events Search
Font Size:
Mondaq on Twitter
Mondaq Free Registration
Gain access to Mondaq global archive of over 375,000 articles covering 200 countries with a personalised News Alert and automatic login on this device.
Mondaq News Alert (some suggested topics and region)
Select Topics
Registration (please 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