We welcome article submissions from experts in the areas of coal, mining,
shipping, etc.
To Submit your article please click here.
|
|
|
Thursday, 30 March 17
WHERE AN AGREEMENT FAILS TO DELIVER - WATSON FARLEY & WILLIAMS
 KNOWLEDGE TO ELEVATE
Watson Farley & Williams acted for MRI Trading AG in a leading case on ‘agreements to agree’ that was finally decided by the Court of Appeal in 20131 . That decision has recently been considered in the High Court by Mr Justice Walker in Teekay Tankers Ltd v STX Offshore & Shipbuilding Co. Ltd, 2 a shipbuilding case of particular relevance to parties that enter into long-term agreements or options leaving delivery terms to be agreed.
Agreeing to agree
Under English law, you cannot ‘agree to agree’. Where parties agree that they will agree to enter into a contract and no such contract is concluded, that initial ‘agreement’ will be unenforceable or void on the basis of uncertainty. An English court will not step in to complete the parties’ bargain where one or more essential terms of that bargain are uncertain. However, parties may not want to fix every contractual term at the outset of their relationship. For example, in long-term supply contracts, they may wish to finalise certain terms only when future market circumstances are known.
|
“AN ENGLISH COURT WILL NOT STEP IN TO COMPLETE THE PARTIES’ BARGAIN WHERE ONE OR MORE ESSENTIAL TERMS OF THAT BARGAIN ARE UNCERTAIN.” |
A common way for drafters of contracts to achieve this is by reference to an objective standard, such as a published price index, against which a price adjustment can be made. However, even where the chosen mechanism fails or the contract does not provide for such a mechanism, there are circumstances in which English law will nevertheless uphold the parties’ bargain. The English courts have made it clear that each case is to be decided on its own facts and terms, but have identified factors that might indicate that the parties intended their bargain to be enforceable, in which case the courts will strive to give effect to that intention and seek, where possible, to preserve the parties’ bargain.
The facts of Teekay
In Teekay v STX, subsidiaries of Teekay had entered into four shipbuilding contracts with STX (“the SBCs”) and Teekay had entered into an option contract with STX by which Teekay was granted three options to order three additional sets of up to four vessels from STX (“the Option Agreement”). The Option Agreement provided that, on Teekay exercising each option, (subsidiaries of) Teekay would enter into shipbuilding contracts with STX on materially identical terms to the SBCs, but the “Delivery Dates for each [of the] Optional Vessels shall be mutually agreed upon at the time of [Teekay’s] declaration of the relevant option”. Importantly, the clause also provided that STX was to use its “best efforts” to “have a delivery” for each of the first set of optional vessels within 2016 and for each of the second and third sets of optional vessels within 2017.
|
“STX DEFENDED THE CLAIM ON THE GROUNDS THAT IT HAD NO LIABILITY TO TEEKAY BECAUSE THE PROVISION IN THE OPTION AGREEMENT REGARDING DELIVERY DATES AMOUNTED TO AN ‘AGREEMENT TO AGREE’ THAT WAS VOID FOR UNCERTAINTY.” |
The specific Delivery Date for each vessel was integral to the operation of the anticipated shipbuilding contracts that would then be concluded, including the delay, cancellation and liquidated damages provisions. After Teekay exercised the first of the three options, STX’s statements and conduct demonstrated that it would not perform the Option Agreement. Teekay accepted those statements and conduct as a repudiation at common law, as a result of which the Option Agreement came to an end with no agreement having been reached as to the Delivery Dates.
Teekay claimed damages of over US$100m and STX defended the claim on the grounds that it had no liability to Teekay because the provision in the Option Agreement regarding Delivery Dates amounted to an ‘agreement to agree’ that was void for uncertainty.
For each set of vessels, Teekay asked the High Court to imply either of the following terms into the Option Agreement to resolve this apparent uncertainty:
a) the Delivery Date should be a date that STX offered within 2016 (for the first set of optional vessels) or 2017 (for the second and third sets) using its best efforts to do so, or, if STX was not able to offer such dates, the earliest date thereafter which it could offer using its best efforts (“the Offer Date Implied Term”); or
b) the Delivery Date was to be an objectively reasonable date (having regard to STX’s best efforts), to be determined by the Court if not agreed by the parties (“the Reasonableness Implied Term”).
The decision
Mr Justice Walker considered the authorities in detail, including MRI, and found that the starting point should be that the parties had intended the Option Agreement to be legally binding and that the court should strive to uphold the parties’ bargain.
Relevant factors taken into account by Mr Justice Walker in determining this starting point were that the Option Agreement formed part of a package of contracts that had been partially performed and the parties had acted as if the Option Agreement were binding.
|
“THE STARTING POINT SHOULD BE THAT THE PARTIES HAD INTENDED THE OPTION AGREEMENT TO BE LEGALLY BINDING AND THAT THE COURT SHOULD STRIVE TO UPHOLD THE PARTIES’ BARGAIN.” |
From that starting point, Mr Justice Walker sought to determine whether the implied terms contended for by Teekay could properly be regarded as being the objective intention of the parties at the time they entered into the Option Agreement. Mr Justice Walker found that they were not and therefore they could not be implied, as a result of which the Option Agreement was void for uncertainty.
In relation to each implied term, Mr Justice Walker’s reasoning can be summarised as follows:
a) the Offer Date Implied Term would mean that the Delivery Dates would be at STX’s unilateral declaration, which would be contrary to one of the English law tests for implying a contractual term. It was not said to be objectively obvious, at the time that Teekay and STX concluded the Option Agreement, that if a Delivery Date was not agreed STX should unilaterally be able to declare a Delivery Date; and
b) as to the Reasonableness Implied Term, two factors were of particular importance:
(i) the Delivery Date was a critical term in the SBC that affected other provisions of the SBC; and
(ii) the Delivery Date was subject to STX’s “best efforts” obligation. As to the first factor, Mr Justice Walker noted that both parties would want to select a Delivery Date that suited their own commercial interests (which they were entitled to take into consideration) and their respective interests may be in conflict.
As to the second, the language of “best efforts” implicitly recognised that the parties would have contrasting interests in selecting a Delivery Date. Those circumstances precluded an identification of a date based on what would be reasonable; there could hardly be an objectively reasonable outcome if the parties had completely divergent interests. The reference to “best efforts” was, in Mr Justice Walker’s judgment, part of a process of seeking to agree an essential term in the SBC and very different from an enforceable obligation to use best efforts to achieve a result.
|
“TEEKAY DEMONSTRATES THAT, WHERE THERE IS NO CLEAR CONTRACTUAL PATH BY WHICH THE COURT CAN PICK ITS WAY THROUGH THE PARTIES COMPETING COMMERCIAL INTERESTS, IT MAY NOT BE ABLE TO UPHOLD A BARGAIN DESPITE STRIVING TO DO SO.” |
In this sense, the Teekay and STX Option Agreement can be seen as a “one off” contract in which no objective criteria had been specified to determine a Delivery Date. Selecting a Delivery Date would involve both Teekay and STX taking into account a variety of commercial and practical considerations, which might affect their ability and willingness to agree. In those circumstances, “reasonableness” was not a sufficient criterion that would enable the Court to reconcile the parties’ potentially conflicting wishes.
Conclusion
It may come as a surprise to some commercial parties and seem somewhat unjust that otherwise carefully negotiated and detailed agreements might be held to be unenforceable or void because one or more (albeit essential) terms are uncertain. The courts have recognised this risk and have set out a clear and helpful framework against which they might uphold parties’ bargains. However, the courts have stressed that each ‘agreement to agree’ case is to be decided on its own unique facts and terms.
In MRI, the High Court and the Court of Appeal upheld the bargain by implying a term that a price adjustment and delivery schedule should be “reasonable” where the agreement stated that those matters “shall be agreed” but the parties had not agreed them. A key factor in that case was that the agreement had been entered into as part of a settlement agreement compromising a previous dispute and the remainder of that settlement agreement had been fully performed. However, this was in principle similar to Teekay, which involved a suite of contracts.
The court’s attempt to distinguish MRI on the basis that deliveries under commodities contracts were matters of routine was not borne out by MRI, where the London Metal Exchange Tribunal had found as a matter of fact (acknowledged in the appeal proceedings) that shipping schedules were not to be dismissed as matters of detail and involved important considerations concerning the parties’ commercial needs.
Teekay demonstrates that, absent any clear contractual path by which the court can pick its way through the parties’ competing commercial interests, it may not be able to uphold a bargain despite striving to do so. With this in mind, two drafting points of general importance arise from Mr Justice Walker’s judgment.
1. Parties entering into contracts should ensure that all their contractual terms are certain at its outset or, if that is not possible, include a contractual mechanism against which a term can be determined in the absence of agreement.
2. Parties should consider carefully the mechanism that will be used. The inclusion of a non-specific “best efforts” obligation in the Option Agreement may have been intended to compel STX to take appropriate action, but in fact worked against the implication of a term by the court. Teekay would have been in a better position if the Option Agreement had provided for a specific objective mechanism to set the Delivery Date, but may also have been in a better position if they had said nothing about “best efforts” at all.
At the time of writing it does not appear that this decision has been appealed. Perhaps the decision not to do so was for pragmatic reasons owing to the bankruptcy of STX and concerns over the eventual value of the claim even if the decision were to be subsequently overturned.
By: ANDREW HUTCHEON
Partner, Watson Farley & Williams
London
BEN LAMBLE
Senior Associate, Watson Farley & Williams
London
If you believe an article violates your rights or the rights of others, please contact us.
|
|
Thursday, 25 January 24
THE RED SEA ESCALATION IMPLICATIONS ON GLOBAL SEABORNE TRADE - MARIA BERTZELETOU
In recent days, discussions have intensified about the potential impact on the seaborne trade and ton-miles due to the evolving dynamics of market ...
Thursday, 25 January 24
RED SEA SHIPPING DISRUPTIONS KEEP GEOPOLITICAL PREMIUM FOR COMMODITIES - FITCH RATINGS
Shipping disruptions and re-routing away from the Red Sea will maintain the geopolitical premium in the main commodity markets, including for oil a ...
Friday, 19 January 24
INDONESIA TARGETS 710 MLN METRIC TONS COAL OUTPUT IN 2024 AFTER RECORD 2023 - REUTERS
Indonesia, a major thermal coal exporter, aims to produce 710 million metric tons of coal in 2024, its mining minister said on Monday, after postin ...
Friday, 19 January 24
DRUMMOND COLOMBIA COAL OUTPUT ROSE 7.1% IN 2023 - REUTERS
Coal production from miner Drummond’s Colombia operations rose 7.1% in 2023 to 29.5 million metric tons, while exports declined by 2.6% to 27 ...
Friday, 19 January 24
CHINA'S 2023 COAL OUTPUT HITS RECORD HIGH - REUTERS
China’s coal output reached a record high in 2023, data from the statistics bureau showed on Wednesday, amid an ongoing focus on energy secur ...
|
|
|
Showing 51 to 55 news of total 6871 |
|
 |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
 |
|
|
| |
|
- Makarim & Taira - Indonesia
- Kartika Selabumi Mining - Indonesia
- Orica Mining Services - Indonesia
- Miang Besar Coal Terminal - Indonesia
- Minerals Council of Australia
- Essar Steel Hazira Ltd - India
- Thai Mozambique Logistica
- Bukit Baiduri Energy - Indonesia
- Directorate Of Revenue Intelligence - India
- Semirara Mining Corp, Philippines
- Rio Tinto Coal - Australia
- Goldman Sachs - Singapore
- CNBM International Corporation - China
- IHS Mccloskey Coal Group - USA
- Sindya Power Generating Company Private Ltd
- Thiess Contractors Indonesia
- Trasteel International SA, Italy
- Gujarat Electricity Regulatory Commission - India
- Metalloyd Limited - United Kingdom
- Siam City Cement PLC, Thailand
- Leighton Contractors Pty Ltd - Australia
- Economic Council, Georgia
- Gujarat Sidhee Cement - India
- Maheswari Brothers Coal Limited - India
- LBH Netherlands Bv - Netherlands
- Mercuria Energy - Indonesia
- Central Electricity Authority - India
- Lanco Infratech Ltd - India
- Attock Cement Pakistan Limited
- Maharashtra Electricity Regulatory Commission - India
- Sinarmas Energy and Mining - Indonesia
- Bukit Asam (Persero) Tbk - Indonesia
- London Commodity Brokers - England
- Videocon Industries ltd - India
- Heidelberg Cement - Germany
- Ind-Barath Power Infra Limited - India
- Parry Sugars Refinery, India
- Kalimantan Lumbung Energi - Indonesia
- Bukit Makmur.PT - Indonesia
- Kepco SPC Power Corporation, Philippines
- Coastal Gujarat Power Limited - India
- Parliament of New Zealand
- Bhushan Steel Limited - India
- Straits Asia Resources Limited - Singapore
- Petron Corporation, Philippines
- Interocean Group of Companies - India
- Simpson Spence & Young - Indonesia
- Australian Coal Association
- Karbindo Abesyapradhi - Indoneisa
- Kobexindo Tractors - Indoneisa
- Mintek Dendrill Indonesia
- Kohat Cement Company Ltd. - Pakistan
- Asia Pacific Energy Resources Ventures Inc, Philippines
- Energy Link Ltd, New Zealand
- Indo Tambangraya Megah - Indonesia
- Chamber of Mines of South Africa
- Globalindo Alam Lestari - Indonesia
- Ministry of Mines - Canada
- Carbofer General Trading SA - India
- Edison Trading Spa - Italy
- Coalindo Energy - Indonesia
- Sree Jayajothi Cements Limited - India
- Bangladesh Power Developement Board
- Dong Bac Coal Mineral Investment Coporation - Vietnam
- PowerSource Philippines DevCo
- Samtan Co., Ltd - South Korea
- Aditya Birla Group - India
- PetroVietnam Power Coal Import and Supply Company
- Renaissance Capital - South Africa
- AsiaOL BioFuels Corp., Philippines
- Binh Thuan Hamico - Vietnam
- IEA Clean Coal Centre - UK
- Bahari Cakrawala Sebuku - Indonesia
- Grasim Industreis Ltd - India
- Petrochimia International Co. Ltd.- Taiwan
- Siam City Cement - Thailand
- Semirara Mining and Power Corporation, Philippines
- Baramulti Group, Indonesia
- Ambuja Cements Ltd - India
- Planning Commission, India
- Africa Commodities Group - South Africa
- The Treasury - Australian Government
- Bank of Tokyo Mitsubishi UFJ Ltd
- Energy Development Corp, Philippines
- ICICI Bank Limited - India
- Jaiprakash Power Ventures ltd
- Sojitz Corporation - Japan
- Toyota Tsusho Corporation, Japan
- Singapore Mercantile Exchange
- Eastern Coal Council - USA
- Riau Bara Harum - Indonesia
- TeaM Sual Corporation - Philippines
- Altura Mining Limited, Indonesia
- Pipit Mutiara Jaya. PT, Indonesia
- Port Waratah Coal Services - Australia
- Therma Luzon, Inc, Philippines
- GAC Shipping (India) Pvt Ltd
- PNOC Exploration Corporation - Philippines
- New Zealand Coal & Carbon
- SMC Global Power, Philippines
- Romanian Commodities Exchange
- Electricity Authority, New Zealand
- Bayan Resources Tbk. - Indonesia
- Orica Australia Pty. Ltd.
- Sical Logistics Limited - India
- Krishnapatnam Port Company Ltd. - India
- Vijayanagar Sugar Pvt Ltd - India
- McConnell Dowell - Australia
- Cigading International Bulk Terminal - Indonesia
- San Jose City I Power Corp, Philippines
- Borneo Indobara - Indonesia
- Indian Energy Exchange, India
- Holcim Trading Pte Ltd - Singapore
- Larsen & Toubro Limited - India
- Kaltim Prima Coal - Indonesia
- White Energy Company Limited
- Wilmar Investment Holdings
- Offshore Bulk Terminal Pte Ltd, Singapore
- CIMB Investment Bank - Malaysia
- Directorate General of MIneral and Coal - Indonesia
- Tamil Nadu electricity Board
- Latin American Coal - Colombia
- Jindal Steel & Power Ltd - India
- TNB Fuel Sdn Bhd - Malaysia
- Wood Mackenzie - Singapore
- Banpu Public Company Limited - Thailand
- Intertek Mineral Services - Indonesia
- Savvy Resources Ltd - HongKong
- Bhatia International Limited - India
- Cement Manufacturers Association - India
- Tata Chemicals Ltd - India
- Standard Chartered Bank - UAE
- Meenaskhi Energy Private Limited - India
- Jorong Barutama Greston.PT - Indonesia
- Star Paper Mills Limited - India
- Uttam Galva Steels Limited - India
- Indogreen Group - Indonesia
- GN Power Mariveles Coal Plant, Philippines
- Barasentosa Lestari - Indonesia
- Central Java Power - Indonesia
- Global Green Power PLC Corporation, Philippines
- Commonwealth Bank - Australia
- MS Steel International - UAE
- Oldendorff Carriers - Singapore
- Marubeni Corporation - India
- Sakthi Sugars Limited - India
- ASAPP Information Group - India
- Anglo American - United Kingdom
- Chettinad Cement Corporation Ltd - India
- Gujarat Mineral Development Corp Ltd - India
- Asmin Koalindo Tuhup - Indonesia
- Electricity Generating Authority of Thailand
- OPG Power Generation Pvt Ltd - India
- Indonesian Coal Mining Association
- Bulk Trading Sa - Switzerland
- Malabar Cements Ltd - India
- Posco Energy - South Korea
- Eastern Energy - Thailand
- Indika Energy - Indonesia
- Aboitiz Power Corporation - Philippines
- India Bulls Power Limited - India
- Salva Resources Pvt Ltd - India
- Timah Investasi Mineral - Indoneisa
- SN Aboitiz Power Inc, Philippines
- Alfred C Toepfer International GmbH - Germany
- Australian Commodity Traders Exchange
- Dalmia Cement Bharat India
- Filglen & Citicon Mining (HK) Ltd - Hong Kong
- Karaikal Port Pvt Ltd - India
- Dr Ramakrishna Prasad Power Pvt Ltd - India
- Ceylon Electricity Board - Sri Lanka
- Bhoruka Overseas - Indonesia
- International Coal Ventures Pvt Ltd - India
- Medco Energi Mining Internasional
- Global Coal Blending Company Limited - Australia
- Global Business Power Corporation, Philippines
- SMG Consultants - Indonesia
- South Luzon Thermal Energy Corporation
- Price Waterhouse Coopers - Russia
- GMR Energy Limited - India
- Kumho Petrochemical, South Korea
- Kapuas Tunggal Persada - Indonesia
- Deloitte Consulting - India
- Independent Power Producers Association of India
- PTC India Limited - India
- Neyveli Lignite Corporation Ltd, - India
- Meralco Power Generation, Philippines
- The State Trading Corporation of India Ltd
- Merrill Lynch Commodities Europe
- Iligan Light & Power Inc, Philippines
- Sarangani Energy Corporation, Philippines
- GVK Power & Infra Limited - India
- Mjunction Services Limited - India
- VISA Power Limited - India
- Power Finance Corporation Ltd., India
- Formosa Plastics Group - Taiwan
- Ministry of Transport, Egypt
- Agrawal Coal Company - India
- Antam Resourcindo - Indonesia
- Mercator Lines Limited - India
- Indian Oil Corporation Limited
- Kideco Jaya Agung - Indonesia
- Manunggal Multi Energi - Indonesia
- Xindia Steels Limited - India
- Billiton Holdings Pty Ltd - Australia
- Rashtriya Ispat Nigam Limited - India
- Pendopo Energi Batubara - Indonesia
- The University of Queensland
- Vizag Seaport Private Limited - India
- European Bulk Services B.V. - Netherlands
- Coal and Oil Company - UAE
- Georgia Ports Authority, United States
- Truba Alam Manunggal Engineering.Tbk - Indonesia
- Vedanta Resources Plc - India
- Madhucon Powers Ltd - India
- Ministry of Finance - Indonesia
- Bharathi Cement Corporation - India
|
| |
| |
|
