BREACH OF CONTRACT – FORCE MAJEURE – FORCE MAJEURE UNPACKED: WHEN ‘REASONABLE ENDEAVOURS’ DON’T BEND CONTRACT TERMS

Summary and Facts

In RTI Ltd v MUR Shipping BV [2024] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 621, the UK Supreme Court examined the scope of a force majeure clause and the reasonable endeavours obligation in a contract of affreightment. RTI Ltd, a charterer, entered a contract with MUR Shipping BV for the transport of bauxite, requiring payment in U.S. dollars. When U.S. sanctions affected RTI’s parent company, MUR claimed force majeure, asserting the sanctions hindered their ability to receive payments in dollars. RTI offered to pay in euros and cover any currency conversion costs, but MUR refused, arguing that the force majeure clause did not require them to accept a non-contractual payment method.

Legal Issues

Whether the reasonable endeavours provision required MUR to accept an alternative payment in euros?
Whether force majeure applied if payment issues could be addressed through alternative means?
Whether a reasonable endeavours clause can obligate a party to alter its contractual rights?

Court Findings

The Supreme Court of the United Kingdom upheld MUR’s position, emphasizing that reasonable endeavours under a force majeure clause do not extend to accepting alternative performance that diverges from the contract terms unless clearly stipulated.
The court highlighted that reasonable endeavours clauses are intended to preserve the original obligations of the contract, rather than modifying them to fit unforeseen circumstances.

Practical Implications

This decision reinforces the importance of precise drafting in force majeure clauses. Businesses should clarify whether reasonable endeavours include accepting non-standard performance, particularly in cases where external sanctions or restrictions may apply.
This ruling emphasizes that courts are likely to uphold contractual certainty and parties’ rights to adhere strictly to agreed terms unless explicit flexibility is built into the contract.

Sorotan Terkini

STRATA MANAGEMENT – MANAGEMENT FEE SHOWDOWN – RESIDENTIAL VS. COMMERCIAL – WHO’S PAYING FOR THE EXTRAS?

In a landmark decision in Aikbee Timbers Sdn Bhd & Anor v Yii Sing Chiu & Anor and another appeal [2024] 1 MLJ 94 , the Court of Appeal clarified the rules on maintenance charges and sinking fund contributions in mixed strata developments. Developers and management corporations can impose different rates based on the distinct purposes of residential and commercial parcels. The judgment emphasizes fairness, ensuring residential owners bear the costs of exclusive facilities like pools and gyms, while commercial owners aren’t subsidizing amenities they don’t use. This ruling highlights the importance of transparency in budgeting and equitable cost-sharing in mixed-use properties.

16 Disember ,2024 Tiada Ulasan

ILELGAL MONEYLENDERS – WHEN LOANS CROSS THE LINE: KEY LESSONS FROM SHIM VUI GEH V DAYANG MASTURAH ON ILLEGAL MONEYLENDING AND PROPERTY SECURITY

Can a simple loan lead to a legal battle over property ownership? This case reveals how improper security arrangements and high-interest rates can turn financial help into a courtroom showdown, highlighting the critical importance of understanding loan agreements and compliance with the law.

16 Disember ,2024 Tiada Ulasan

ILLEGALITY OF UNREGISTERED ESTATE AGENTS’ CLAIM – FINDER’S FEES AND ILLEGALITY: COURT DRAWS THE LINE ON UNREGISTERED ESTATE AGENTS

In a pivotal ruling, the Court of Appeal clarified that finder’s fee agreements are not automatically void under the Valuers, Appraisers, Estate Agents and Property Managers Act 1981. The Court emphasized that illegality must be specifically pleaded and supported by evidence, and isolated transactions do not trigger the Act’s prohibition. This decision highlights the importance of precise pleadings and a clear understanding of the law’s scope.

16 Disember ,2024 Tiada Ulasan

COMPANIES ACT – OPPRESSION – DRAWING THE LINE: FEDERAL COURT DEFINES OPPRESSION VS. CORPORATE HARMS

In a decisive ruling, the Federal Court clarified the boundaries between personal shareholder oppression and corporate harm, overturning the Court of Appeal’s findings. The Court held that claims tied to the wrongful transfer of trademarks belonged to the company, not the individual shareholder, reaffirming that corporate harm must be addressed through a derivative action rather than an oppression claim.

16 Disember ,2024 Tiada Ulasan

COMPANIES LAW – WHEN DIRECTORS BETRAY: COURT CONDEMNS BREACH OF TRUST AND CORPORATE MISCONDUCT

In a stark reminder of the consequences of corporate betrayal, the court found that the directors had systematically dismantled their own company to benefit a competing entity they controlled. By breaching their fiduciary duties, conspiring to harm the business, and unjustly enriching themselves, the defendants were held accountable through significant compensatory and exemplary damages, reaffirming the critical importance of trust and integrity in corporate governance.

16 Disember ,2024 Tiada Ulasan

JURISDICTION – CHOOSING THE RIGHT COURT: THE SEA JUSTICE CASE HIGHLIGHTS WHERE MARITIME DISPUTES SHOULD BE HEARD

In The Sea Justice cases [2024] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 383 and [2024] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 429, the Singapore courts tackled a key question: which country should handle a maritime dispute when incidents span international waters? After examining the location of the collision, existing limitation funds in China, and witness availability, the courts concluded that China was the more appropriate forum. This ruling highlights that courts will often defer to the jurisdiction with the closest ties to the incident, ensuring efficient and fair handling of cross-border maritime disputes. This approach is also relevant in Malaysia, where similar principles apply.

17 November ,2024 Tiada Ulasan

MY

× Hubungi Kami