UK Supreme Court Rules Loss Of Bargain Damages Are Recoverable For Non-repudiatory Breach

In Great Asia Maritime Limited v Orion Shipping and Trading LLC [2026] UKSC 23, the UK Supreme Court held that where a contract is breached, damages for loss of bargain may be recoverable even if the breach was not repudiatory. While the case concerned the Norwegian Saleform standard form contract for sale and purchase of second-hand ships, the decision is relevant more widely for parties considering or negotiating their contractual termination rights and the consequences of exercising those rights. The case also contains welcome reaffirmation from the UK’s highest court that industry standard form contracts benefit from predictable, stable interpretations that will be respected by the courts unless obviously wrong.

Repudiatory breach and loss of bargain

In our series on non-contractual termination rights, we explained the concept of repudiatory breach. As mentioned in that article, a party who terminates for repudiatory breach of contract may be able to claim “loss of bargain” damages, which refers to the loss of the breaching party’s future performance of its contractual obligations. This is potentially valuable as it can incorporate loss of future profits on a contract.

As the Supreme Court explained in this case, it helps to remember that “loss of bargain” is here being used in a narrow context. In one sense, all damages for breach of contract are damages for the loss of a bargain. But in this context, “one is referring to a loss of bargain consequent on the termination of a contract” i.e. losses that arise as a direct result of the contract being terminated. It has sometimes been thought that this head of loss is only available for repudiatory breach. This decision clarifies that that is not necessarily the case depending on the wording of the relevant contract.

Background

Great Asia Maritime (the Buyers) agreed to buy a ship from Orion (the Sellers) for $15m. The agreement was made using the industry standard Norwegian Saleform, 2012 version (the NSF). The Sellers failed, twice, to deliver the ship on time. The Buyers decided to cancel, which was permitted by clause 14 of the NSF if the Sellers were not ready to transfer the ship to the Buyers on time.

The matter was referred to arbitration. The arbitral tribunal found that the Sellers failed to be ready on time due to proven negligence on their part. This meant that the Buyers were entitled to compensation under clause 14, which says:

Should the Sellers fail to give Notice of Readiness by the Cancelling Date or fail to be ready to validly complete a legal transfer as aforesaid they shall make due compensation to the Buyers for their loss and for all expenses together with interest if their failure is due to proven negligence and whether or not the Buyers cancel this Agreement.

The Sellers had argued that case law demonstrated that there is a universal rule that if a party cancels a contract pursuant to a contractual right, it is not entitled to loss of bargain damages (i.e. damages directly resulting from the cancellation) unless it shows that the other side has committed a repudiatory breach and terminated the contract at common law. 

Rejecting this argument, the arbitrators awarded the Buyers loss of bargain damages of $1.85m, being the difference between the market price they had agreed to pay for the ship, and the higher market price when delivery should have taken place.

The Sellers appealed under section 69 of the Arbitration Act 1996. Following decisions by the Commercial Court and the Court of Appeal, the Supreme Court has upheld the arbitrators’ decision.

Decision

The Supreme Court’s reasoning was as follows.

Initial impressions

As a matter of contractual interpretation, the natural and ordinary meaning of the word “loss” in the context of clause 14 was that it did include loss of bargain damages suffered by the Buyers consequent on cancellation of the contract. The wider context of the NSF also supported this reading. Further, the position was akin to non-delivery of goods under a sale of goods contract. The normal measure of loss in such a case would be the difference between the contract price and the market price when the goods ought to have been delivered.

The Supreme Court took account of the fact that the NSF was an industry standard contract that has been in use for over 40 years. The Supreme Court recognised that there was a settled understanding in courts and textbooks that clause 14 did allow loss of bargain damages, and the English courts are reluctant to disturb established interpretations of standard contracts, which should be supported by certainty, predictability, and consistency of interpretation. In the interests of justice and commercial certainty, previous decisions would therefore have to be clearly wrong before the court will depart from them.

The established meaning of a standard form clause is also part of the objective context relevant to contractual interpretation. If a standard term has an established meaning, then unless that meaning is clearly wrong, the established meaning is the meaning which would be conveyed to a reasonable person in the position of the contracting parties. In this case, that meant that the objective meaning of clause 14 is the established one whereby loss of bargain damages are available, and the burden therefore fell on the Sellers to establish a good reason why that meaning does not apply in this case.

The Seller’s interpretation would also have produced an uncommercial result. If loss of bargain damages were unavailable, the Buyers would be $1.85m short if they were to try to obtain a replacement vessel in the market, whereas the sellers would be able to re-sell the ship which was now worth more money. This could not be right where the Seller was in default. It would reward the defaulting party, and create a perverse incentive for a Seller in a rising market to delay completion in the hope a Buyer would cancel - a highly uncommercial result.

The Supreme Court thus formed the preliminary view that clause 14 of the NSF was likely to allow loss of bargain damages, and the Sellers would need a highly persuasive argument to displace this initial impression. 

The Sellers arguments

The Sellers had made two key arguments as to why their interpretation was right, but neither persuaded the Supreme Court.

First, the Sellers argued that where a party operates a contractual termination clause (as the Buyers had done), it is the party’s choice to cancel, not the counterparty’s breach, that causes the loss of the bargain. The Sellers called this the “causation principle”. They argued that it should mean that loss of bargain damages are excluded.

The argument for the causation principle was made in particular reliance on an old Court of Appeal decision, Financings Ltd v Baldock [1963] 2 QB 104. In that case, a creditor terminated a hire-purchase agreement for a truck under an express termination clause, following non-payment of the first two instalments by the debtor. The creditor sought damages at common law, asking to be awarded damages for the instalments it would have been paid in future (less the initial payment and the value of the truck). The Court of Appeal found that failure to pay the first two instalments was not a repudiatory breach. The creditor was found not to be entitled to damages for future payments, but rather could claim only for the two missed instalments.

In addressing these submissions, the Supreme Court explained that the reasoning supporting the Financings decision was not clear. The Sellers had argued that it was the causation principle – that it was the election to terminate that caused the loss. But this could not be quite right. Even when there is a repudiatory breach, it is still the election of the innocent party that then brings the contract to an end. And yet loss of bargain damages are available in that scenario.

Moreover, even if some form of this argument that the loss is caused by the termination were correct, this case did not concern a bare termination right - it still required the interpretation of an express compensation provision in clause 14, and there was no reason to read this type of causation analysis into the express provision of clause 14.

Second, the Sellers sought to argue that there would need to be clear words in clause 14 to create a right to loss of bargain damages, given that these would not arise at common law. The idea was that this should be recognised because it is established law that clear words are needed to exclude a right a party would otherwise have at common law, and so an equivalent need for clear words should apply to the inclusion of a right a party would not otherwise have.

But the Supreme Court rejected the idea that these situations should be treated similarly. The principle that clear words are needed to exclude a valuable right is founded in the idea that it is inherently unlikely a party would intend to give up such a right, and so it must be sufficiently clear that this is the case. By contrast, it is not unlikely that a party would, by a contract, confer additional rights. Indeed, one might say that this is what all contracts do.

The Sellers therefore failed to persuade the Supreme Court that clause 14 did not include loss of bargain damages.

Comment

This decision goes beyond affirming the established understanding of the NSF. It demonstrates that the clear principles of contractual interpretation under English law allow parties to decide what damages should be available on termination. 

It is possible for the express terms of a contract to displace the idea that loss of bargain damages, in the sense of damages for future losses consequent on a breach, are only recoverable for repudiatory breach. And in commercial contracts where that is the most natural meaning of the words used, this is what a clause will be taken to mean. Thus, a clause stating that a party must compensate for “loss” will be interpreted in line with the objectively likely meaning of loss in the circumstances of that contract.

However, the Supreme Court’s commentary on the Financings decision invites speculation on another important question of law – are loss of bargain damages available when a contract is terminated under a “bare” termination clause, i.e. if the contract does not contain a clause setting out what losses will be recoverable? The Supreme Court explicitly did not overturn Financings, but as noted above it did acknowledge that the reasoning as to why loss of bargain damages were found to be unavailable for a non-repudiatory breach is not clear, and that the decision has been subject to criticism. 

The Supreme Court’s comments suggest judicial scepticism that the causation principle contended for by the Sellers in this case can really explain Financings, so it is possible that if a future case turns on it, Financings will be overruled. In the interim, however, whenever drafting express termination provisions, contracting parties should consider whether an express compensation clause should be included so as to make clear that future losses are recoverable, if this is what is commercially desired. 

Finally, commercial parties will be reassured by the comments from the Supreme Court respecting the established treatment of industry standard form contracts. The evolution of the drafting of such contracts occurs with the assistance of court decisions, and while contractual interpretation is always a contract-by-contract exercise, standard form contracts do have respected, established meanings that the English court supports.

Macfarlanes is a pre-eminent law firm advising a global client base across Private Capital, Private Wealth, M&A and Disputes.

Visit our website to learn more about our services and how we can assist.