Yew Huoi, How & Associates | Leading Malaysia Law Firm

Menu

CONTRACTS – CONTRACT FOR THE SALE OF GOODS FOB – REMOTENESS OF DAMAGES IN BACK-TO-BACK CONTRACTS – COURT DEFINES LIMITS ON LIABILITY

Summary and Facts

In Mitsui & Co (USA) Inc v Asia-Potash International Investment (Guangzhou) Co Ltd [2024] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 639, Mitsui contracted to sell soybeans FOB (free on board) to Asia Potash. However, significant delays and an accident led to the vessel’s removal from berth, disrupting the transaction. Mitsui alleged that Asia Potash failed to re-berth the vessel, resulting in additional costs and a chain of financial losses due to a series of back-to-back contracts. Each party sought recourse up the contractual chain, with Mitsui seeking indemnities and damages in arbitration, which were initially denied on remoteness grounds.

Legal Issues

  • Whether Mitsui’s losses were foreseeable and within the reasonable contemplation of both parties, in line with the principles set out in Hadley v Baxendale.
  • Whether Asia Potash breached its contractual duty by not re-berthing the vessel.
  • The extent to which contractual losses can pass through a chain of contracts structured in a back-to-back manner.

What’s Back-to-Back Contract?

Back-to-back contracts are linked agreements, often with similar or mirrored terms, used in supply chains or projects involving multiple parties. Each contract aligns with the terms of the next, creating a chain of obligations and liabilities. In practice:

  1. If a party defaults, the resulting liability can cascade up or down the chain.
  2. Each party in the chain may claim losses or damages from the next, creating a string of claims, as seen in the Mitsui case.
  3. Terms like delivery schedules or quality requirements are often mirrored in each contract to ensure consistent obligations across the chain.

Court’s Findings

  1. The court found that the arbitrators misapplied the remoteness test by focusing too narrowly on the back-to-back structure instead of assessing if the type of loss was foreseeable. The case was remitted for reassessment under proper remoteness principles.
  2. The court denied Asia Potash’s attempt to invoke a liability-limiting clause as it was not raised in the initial arbitration.

Practical Implications

This case highlights that, even in back-to-back contracts, claims for damages depend on foreseeability and not just on the contractual structure. Businesses engaging in chains of contracts should ensure clarity on liability and indemnity provisions, as courts assess whether losses are within the reasonable contemplation of each party. Additionally, parties must proactively raise all arguments in arbitration to avoid forfeiting defenses. This ruling emphasises the importance of understanding back-to-back obligations in protecting against financial risk in linked transactions.

Back to Latest Legal Updates

Recent Post

ROAD TRANSPORT ACT – INSURANCE – DECLARATION TO NOT INDEMNIFY THE INSURANCE

In Mohd Riza bin Mat Rani & Ors v Zurich General Takaful Malaysia Bhd [2025] 2 MLJ 224, the Court of Appeal allowed the appeal by the claimants and set aside the High Court’s decision which had favoured the insurer. The Court held that Zurich was not entitled to repudiate liability under the motor takaful policy, as the alleged non-disclosures were not proven to be material or made dishonestly. Emphasising the principles of fairness and protection inherent in takaful, the Court ruled that technical omissions should not be used to defeat the rights of accident victims and their families.

Read More »
16 November ,2025 No Comments

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW – A PEACEFUL WIN: COURT STRIKES DOWN CRIMINAL PENALTY FOR NO NOTICE UNDER PAA

In Amir Hariri bin Abd Hadi v Public Prosecutor [2025] 4 MLJ 807, the Court of Appeal struck down Section 9(5) of the Peaceful Assembly Act 2012 as unconstitutional. The provision, which criminalised organisers for failing to give 10 days’ prior notice of an assembly, was held to be a disproportionate restriction on the constitutional right to peaceful assembly under Article 10(1)(b). The Court emphasised that while notice requirements under Section 9(1) remain valid for regulatory purposes, criminal penalties for non-compliance imposed an unjustifiable burden on fundamental liberties. This landmark ruling strengthens constitutional protections for public assemblies in Malaysia.

Read More »
16 November ,2025 No Comments

MARITIME LAW – LIEN, LOSS AND LMAA: ENGLISH COMMERCIAL COURT ORDERS SALE OF DETERIORATING CARGO

In Lord Marine Co Ltd v Vimeksim Trans SA & Anor [2025] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 52, the English Commercial Court exercised its powers under s.44 Arbitration Act 1996 to order the sale of a deteriorating cargo of Ukrainian corn over which the shipowners had exercised a lien for unpaid freight. Mr Justice Bryan held that the cargo was the “subject of the proceedings” and that the court could intervene to preserve its value pending LMAA arbitration. The decision clarifies that a “freight prepaid” stamp does not estop owners where freight has not actually been paid and the bills of lading never left owners’ possession, and that possession can be maintained even when the cargo is stored in a receivers’ warehouse. This case reinforces the court’s readiness to act swiftly to prevent the loss of value in perishable cargo while safeguarding parties through fortified undertakings in damages.

Read More »
16 November ,2025 No Comments

SUMMARY JUDGMENT – NO ESCAPE FOR GUARANTORS – COURT GRANTS SUMMARY JUDGMENT TO OCBC IN LOAN DEFAULT DISPUTE

In OCBC Bank (Malaysia) Bhd v Agroglobal Sdn Bhd [2025] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 558, the Singapore High Court granted summary judgment against the borrower and its guarantors, dismissing bare allegations of misrepresentation and non-disbursement. The decision reaffirmed that signed facility and guarantee documents are binding, and generic denials- absent credible evidence – will not prevent judgment. The case highlights the judiciary’s strict stance on enforcing loan agreements and signals that guarantors cannot plead ignorance of clear contractual obligations.

Read More »
16 November ,2025 No Comments

MARITIME LAW – PORT CHARGES – BERTH AND BILL – COURT ANCHORS LIABILITY FOR PORT DUES ON IDLE VESSEL

In Marina Developments Ltd v Owner(S) Of “Sy Explorer” [2025] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 428, the court upheld the Port Authority’s statutory right to recover outstanding berthing charges, despite claims of abandonment by the vessel’s owners. The judgment reinforces that unless formal legal abandonment procedures are undertaken, port dues will continue to accrue. This decision affirms that even stationary vessels carry financial obligations, and port authorities can enforce recovery under maritime law protocols.

Read More »
16 November ,2025 No Comments

MARITIME LAW – BILLS OF LADING – NO BILL, NO CARGO – SHIPOWNERS HELD LIABLE FOR MISDELIVERY WITHOUT ORIGINAL BL

In the pivotal case of The Doric Valour [2025] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 401, the Court of Appeal affirmed the stringent maritime principle that cargo cannot lawfully be released without the surrender of original bills of lading. Rejecting shipowners’ reliance on indemnities to justify cargo delivery without original documents, the Court emphasized the sanctity of the bill of lading as the cornerstone of secure international trade. This decision serves as a robust reminder for maritime operators that compliance with established shipping documentation procedures is mandatory to avoid serious liabilities.

Read More »
16 November ,2025 No Comments
en_USEN
zh_TWZH ms_MYMY en_USEN
× Contact Us