Print Article _ Indemnity in a Contract

8/10/2019 Print Article _ Indemnity in a Contract

1/4

1/16/2015 Print Article : Indemnity in a contract

http://www.legalservicesindia.com/article/print.php?art_id=379 1/4

shuchi.lawstudent'sProfile and details

shuchipandey,final yearlaw studentat universityof burdwan

Indemnity in a contract

Source: http://www.Author: shuchi.lawstudentPublished on: October 11, 2010

Indemnity in a contract

1. what is meant by Indemnity in a contract?

In common parlance indemnity is often used as a synonym

for compensation or reparation.

As a legal concept, it has a more specific meaning. Forinstance, compensation connotes merely a sum paid to makegood the loss of another without regard to the payer's identity,or their reasons for doing so. As the following paragraphsshould explain, an indemnity is a sub-species ofcompensation, in the same way that damages and reparations

are.

An obligation to indemnity can also be distinguished from a guarantee granted by one partyin regard to the potential debts of another. For example A might agree to stand guarantor (orsurety) for her son C (an impecunious law student) so that if C cannot afford to pay his rentto B (his canny landlord), A will be obliged to pay for him. Here, C is the one primarilyresponsible for payment of the rent. A's liability is only ancillary. The liability of anindemnifier, properly so-called, is primary. This distinction between indemnity andguarantee was discussed as early as the eighteenth century in Birkmya v Darnell.[1] In thatcase, concerned with a guarantee of payment for goods, rather than payment of rent, the

presiding judge explained that a guarantee effectively says "Let him have the goods if hedoes not pay you, I will." By contrast, an indemnity is like saying "Let him have the goods,I will be your paymaster.[2]

It has been held in Gajanan Moreshwar Parelkar v. Moreshar Madan Mantri[3],

that the provisions of the Indian contract Act dealing with indemnity are not exhaustive onthe law of indemnity and hence the same equitable principles as courts in England do

2. Indemnity under Indian Contract Act 1872

As per section 124 of the Indian contract Act 1872- a contract by which one party promisesto save the other from loss caused to him by the conduct of the promisor himself, or by theconduct of any other person, is called a " contract of indemnity".

3.Key Fundamentals

1. It is a promise to compensate for or security against damage, loss or injury.2. In wider sense it includes all contracts of insurance, guarantee. It is not a collateral but anindependent contract.3. It is a tool for allocating risks contingent liability.4. Indemnity clauses, amongst other things, must be clear, specific, where possible stipulatethe circumstances under which the indemnity will arise, be considered in light of any

exclusion of liability clauses found elsewhere in the agreement and state what damages willbe payable in the event of the clause being successfully invoked

4.Enforcement

1. A contract of indemnity can be enforced according to its terms.
http://www./http://www.legalservicesindia.com/article/profile.php?author_id=301http://www./


2/4



2. Claim of Indemnity holder can include: damages, legal costs of adjudication, amountpaid under the terms of compromise3. The measure of damages is the extent to which the promisee has been indemnified.4. Indemnifier should ideally be informed of the legal proceedings or should be joined asthird party5. There is no onus to show breach or actual loss.

5. Comparison between the remedies on breach of contract of indemnity and remedies

under section 74 of the Indian contract ActDamages on breach of contract under section 74 of Indian contract Act 1872 are as

under-

(1) Compensatory Damages - money to reimburse for costs to compensate for your loss.

(2) Consequential and Incidental Damages - money for losses caused by the breach thatwere foreseeable. Foreseeable damages means that each side reasonably knew that, at thetime of the contract, there would be potential losses if there was a breach.

(3) Attorney fees and Costs - only recoverable if expressly provided for in the contract.

(4) Liquidated Damages - these are damages specified in the contract that would be payableif there is a fraud.

(5) Specific Performance - a court order requiring performance exactly as specified in thecontract. This remedy is rare, except in real estate transactions and other unique property, asthe courts do not want to get involved with monitoring performance.

(6) Punitive Damages - this is money given to punish a person who acted in an offensiveand egregious manner in an effort to deter the person and others from repeated occurrences

of the wrongdoing. You generally cannot collect punitive damages in contract cases.

(7) Rescission - the contract is canceled and both sides are excused from furtherperformance and any money advanced is returned.

(8) Reformation - the terms of the contract are changed to reflect what the parties actuallyintended.

Damages on breach of contract of indemnity under section 125 of Indian contract Act

1872 is as under-

The promisee in a contract of indemnity, acting within the scope of his authority, is entitled

to recover from the promisor(1) all damages which he may be compelled to pay in any suit in respect of any matter towhich the promise to indemnify applies

(2) all costs which he may be compelled to pay in any such suit if, in bringing or defendingit, he did not contravene the orders of the promisor, and acted as it would have been prudentfor him to act in the absence of any contract of indemnity, or if the promisor authorised himto bring or defend the suit

(3) all sums which he may have paid under the terms of any compromise of any such suit, if

the compromise was not contrary to the orders of the promisor, and was one which it wouldhave been prudent for the promisee to make in the absence of any contract of indemnity, orif the promisor authorized him to compromise the suit.

6. Can a party invoke indemnity on demand?


3/4



In Mary Coleiro v The State of NSW and Others case,Mary Coleiro sued The State of NSW in District Court proceedings for injuries she allegedto have sustained as a result of an incident which occurred on 5 September 2000.

Ms Coleiro was a cleaner employed by Hydaree Pty Limited, a wholly owned subsidiary ofTempo Services Limited (TSL). TSL entered into a contract for the provision of cleaningservices of public schools with the State Contracts Control Board (on behalf of the State of

NSW Department of Education). Whilst on the school premises, the plaintiff alleged to

have tripped and fallen on a raised section of concrete. She was not performing cleaningduties at the time, but was on her way to do so.

The State of NSW (The State) filed a cross-claim against TSL, alleging that it wasobliged to indemnify it under the terms of a service contract.

Service providers can take some comfort from the case of Coleiro which supports the viewthat a temporal connection between the performance of the service and the loss sustained isinsufficient to invoke an indemnity clause.

In Tanksley v. Gulf Oil Corp[4].this court held that an oil company cannot invoke anindemnification agreement with a contractor after settling an injured worker's claims

because, by settling, the oil company foreclosed its opportunity to have a court determinethat it was free from fault[5].

From the above case decisions it can be inferred that indemnity can be invoked on

demand

Indemnity may be invoked where the claimant has a pre-existing condition that caused aloss of use of a member of the body and there is proof that the loss of use is sufficiently

pronounced that an ordinary person could discover it[6]

In accordance with developed practice it is proposed that any indemnity is limited toexclude losses caused by the accountable bodys negligence and that the indemnity can only

be invoked once the accountable body has made reasonable endeavors to recover anyreclaimed grant from the relevant project manager, which may include taking legal action.

Included procedures, terms and conditions in the contract to be followed for invoking theindemnity by the customer.

A letter of indemnity, on the other hand, permits a misrepresentation and, in consequence,it should not be invoked against consignees or third parties and, if used against them, it

should have no effect. The misrepresentation must, of course, be directly related to the lossor damage complained of.

A letter of indemnity is a corollary to a fraud on a third party and cannot be invokedagainst a third party in good faith who, on the contrary, may use the letter as evidence of the

bad order and condition of the goods.

7. Conclusion

Indemnity is a legal exemption from the penalties or liabilities incurred by any course ofaction. An insurance payout is often called an in indemnity, or it can be insurance to avoid

any expenses in case of a lawsuit. Indemnification is a promise, usually as contractprovision, protecting one party from financial loss. This is something stated as arequirement that one party hold harmless the other.(Hold harmless does not implyindemnification.


4/4



The first says I wont make any claims against you and the second says I will pay the claimsagainst and/or your costs, etc.) Indemnification is a type of insurance which protects the one

party from the expenses of other. Indemnification clause cannot usually be enforced forintentional tortious conduct of the protected party.

Corporate officers, board members and public officials often require an indemnity clause intheir contracts before they perform any work. In addition indemnification provisions arecommon in intellectual properties. Licenses in which the licensor does not want to be liable

for misdeeds of the licensee. A typical license would protect the licensor against productliability and patent infringement.--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[1] (1704) 1 Salk 27.[2] also: ''Mountstephan v Lakeman (1871) LR 7 QB 196.[3] 5 Tropical Insurance Co v. Zenith Life Insurance Co, AIR 1941 Lah 68.[4] 848 F.2d 515 (1988)[5] The two intermediate Louisiana appellate courts that have considered the issue have

both rejected the conclusion in Tanksley that an indemnities settlement of a case precludes

a subsequent determination of fault.[6] SPECIAL INDEMNITY FUND v. RICHARD S. ESTILL and THE WORKERS'COMPENSATION COURT

Theauthorcanbereachedat:[email protected]

Documents

Print Article _ Indemnity in a Contract