Upload
evelyn-simpson
View
215
Download
3
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Charterparties and Agreed Damages Clauses under English Law and the PECL
PROF D. RHIDIAN THOMAS
Copyright Rhidian Thomas, 2014 All rights reserved
No part of this publication may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, scanning, recording or by any information storage or retrieval system, without the prior written permission of the author
Agreed Damages Clauses
• Agreed damages/liquidated damages• Familiar feature of mature legal systems• Consistent with ‘freedom of contract’• Facilitate certainty and avoidance of disputes• Also – usually- some mechanism to protect
against abuse
Agreed Damages Clauses in Charterparties
• Voyage charterparties – laytime/demurrage• International sales – laytime/demurrage
clauses• Charterparties more widely – agreement of
the parties• Standard forms – save for V/C not included• Other maritime contracts
PECL - Art 9:509 (ex. art 4.508) – AGREED PAYMENT FOR NON-PERFORMANCE
• Where the contract provides that a party who fails to perform is to pay a specified sum to the aggrieved party for such non-performance, the aggrieved party shall be awarded that sum irrespective of its actual loss.
• However, despite any agreement to the contrary the sum may be reduced to a reasonable amount where it is grossly excessive in relation to the loss resulting from the non-performance and other circumstances.
Art 1:102 Freedom of Contract - Good Faith
English law – liquidated damages
• Valid – if genuine attempt at a pre-estimate/approximation of the damages likely to be suffered in the event of breach
• Not valid if ‘penalty’ - object to deter party from breaching contract – in terrorem
• Test – question of construction –intention of parties• Test applied at the time the contract entered into –
not at time of the breach – interesting implications• Penalty – clause invalid – damages independently
assessed
Genuine attempt at a pre-estimate/approximation of the damages
likely to be suffered
• Test of intention - objective exercise• Evidence which may be examined• Need not be an equivalence between agreed
sum and actual loss• If the agreed sum is extravagant and
unconscionable in amount compared with the greatest conceivable loss - PENALTY
English law – Modern Approach• Operates within framework described• Leaning towards freedom of contract – commercial
relations – parties possessing comparable bargaining power
• Test raises a broad and general question –look at all the evidence and the commercial context
• Fact of disparity (significant) between stipulated and likely damages- not conclusive, only some evidence
• Crucial question – is the disparity “commercially justifiable” – may sanction wide margins
Approach in PECL – Art 9:509
PAYMENT FOR NON-PERFORMANCE•Where the contract provides that a party who fails to perform is to pay a specified sum to the aggrieved party for such non-performance, the aggrieved party shall be awarded that sum irrespective of its actual loss.•However, despite any agreement to the contrary the sum may be reduced to a reasonable amount where it is grossly excessive in relation to the loss resulting from the non-performance and other circumstances.
Art 1:102 Freedom of Contract – Good faith
Approach in PECL – Art 9:509 - Observations
• Clause 1- commitment to freedom of contract and acceptance of possibility of disparity
• Clause 2 – mandatory rule - right to intervene – if agreed sum grossly excessive – reduce to reasonable sum
• Grossly excessive – relative to actual loss and other circumstances
• Regulation - the sum agreed may be reduced to a reasonable sum.
Comparison – English law and PECL
• Each commits to freedom of contract subject to protection against abuse.
• Each accepts that validity is not dependent on equivalence between agreed damages and actual loss
• Regulate differently: PECL regulates the sum agreed; E/L the agreement itself – rendered invalid and damages assessed as if the clause had never existed .
Comparison – English law and PECL
• Different basis of regulation: PECL – “grossly excessive”; E/L – “grossly excessive and absence of commercial justification”.
• PECL does not embody a concept similar to that of a ‘penalty’ as understood in English law.
Two issues of interest
• What if the agreement – (a) did not provide for the payment of damages, but e.g. the forfeit of a right to payment or the transfer of property at an under-valuation?(b) provided for the payment of damages in a sum which was less (or substantially less) than the actual loss suffered?
Final comment
• Demurrage clauses in voyage charterparties –agreed damages agreements.
• Valid under E/L and PECL subject to regulatory provisions.• E/L - if a penalty – agreement invalid and damages for
detention quantified by reference to general principles.• PECL – if grossly excessive – sum reduced to a reasonable
amount.• E/L – to date no instance of a demurrage clause being struck
down as a penalty.