Termination for convenience clauses are a common feature of modern commercial contracts. Terminating a contract in this way has the advantage of avoiding a default-based confrontation. It is also traditionally considered a more expensive way to terminate: parties invoking this type of clause will expect to pay an element of lost profit to the contractor or supplier. However, this will not always be the case, as Comau UK Ltd v Lotus Lightweight Structures illustrates. Continue reading
We have removed the content of this post as the judgment it referred to was heard in private and should not have appeared on BAILII.
This is the second of a three-part blog series in which we consider some key contractual issues in the context of the Qatari and UAE construction markets.
In our first blog, we looked at the principle of freedom to contract as a matter of UAE and Qatari law in the context of liquidated damages (LDs). You might expect this principle would extend to allowing parties to a construction contract to agree a contract term that barred recovery of additional time and money, except where strict notice procedures are followed. This is not necessarily the case: a court or tribunal will not always uphold and enforce such a term, often referred to as a “time bar”. In this article we explore whether time bars may be considered contrary to the provisions of the UAE and Qatari Civil Codes. Continue reading
