DOCSLIB.ORG

Can Entire Agreement and Exclusion Clauses Cure Misrepresentations?

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Can Entire Agreement and Exclusion Clauses Cure Misrepresentations? Client Update January 2011 Dispute Resolution Can Entire Agreement And Exclusion Clauses Cure Misrepresentations? Introduction The case of BSkyB v HP Enterprise Services UK Ltd [2010] QBD 267 (TCC) involved an invitation to tender by the Plaintiff company. The Defendant eventually won the bid, but it did so through a number of misrepresentations, both fraudulent and negligent, regarding its ability to meet the Plaintiff’s timescales. The Defendant was finally unable to complete the project on time, causing great losses to the Plaintiff. The English High Court had to determine whether the Entire Agreement Clause and the Exclusion Clause in the contract between the Plaintiff and the Defendant had the effect of releasing the Defendant from its liability for the misrepresentations. It was agreed that neither clause excluded liability for fraudulent misrepresentation. While the Entire Agreement Clause also failed to prevent the Defendant from being liable for negligent misrepresentation, the Exclusion Clause successfully excluded certain heads of loss and limited the Defendant’s liability for negligent misrepresentation. This case demonstrates the dangers of blindly promising what a potential client wants done just so as to secure a contract. The bidder is likely to be held accountable for all representations made, and depending on the level of dishonesty or deceit behind such representations, entire agreement and exclusion clauses may only afford the bidder a very limited protection. Brief Facts (1) The Plaintiff company wished to procure a new customer relationship management system, and initiated an invitation to tender process. It was expressed that the project should go live within 9 months, and be completed within 18 months. (2) The Defendant, representing that the specified timescales were achievable, managed to win the bid. However, the relationship was not successful, and the contract had to be renegotiated numerous times. Eventually, the Defendant failed to meet the timescale, and full implementation of the management system was only achieved around 5 years later. (3) The Plaintiff claimed against the Defendant for both fraudulent and negligent misrepresentations, including the representations: 1 Rajah & Tann LLP Client Update January 2011 Dispute Resolution a. That the Defendant had carried out a proper analysis in relation to time, and had reasonable grounds for an opinion that the timescales were achievable; and b. That the Defendant had developed an achievable plan, which was the product of proper analysis and re-planning, during renegotiation. (4) The Defendant in turn relied on a number of terms in its contract with the Plaintiff. a. The Entire Agreement Clause: “this Agreement and the schedules together represent the entire understanding and constitute the whole agreement between the parties in relation to its subject matter and supersede any previous discussions, correspondence, representations or agreement… This clause does not exclude liability of either party for fraudulent misrepresentation.” b. The Exclusion Clause: This clause excluded liability for any consequential or indirect loss, or loss of profits, revenue, business, goodwill and anticipated savings. It also capped liability at £30 mil. Issues In order to determine the Defendant’s liability, the Court had to decide: (i) Whether the Defendant’s representations constituted fraudulent or negligent misrepresentations; (ii) Whether the Defendant’s liability could be excluded under the Entire Agreement Clause; and (iii) Whether the Defendant’s liability could be excluded or limited under the Exclusion Clause. Holdings Of The High Court The Court found that the Defendant did indeed make both fraudulent and negligent misrepresentations. (i) The Defendant’s liability for its fraudulent misrepresentations was unaffected by either clause. (ii) The Entire Agreement Clause did not have the effect of withdrawing any of the Defendant’s representations, leaving the Defendant liable for its negligent misrepresentations as well. (iii) However, the Exclusion Clause served to exclude certain heads of loss and cap the Defendant’s liability for its negligent misrepresentations. 2 Rajah & Tann LLP Client Update January 2011 Dispute Resolution Misrepresentations It was found that the Defendant had indeed represented that it had conducted a proper analysis of the amount of time needed to complete the project, and that it could achieve the requested timescales. However, the Defendant accepted that there was no proper analysis or reasonable grounds for the timescales; it did not undertake a proper exercise to work out what work was required, nor did it undertake any proper planning, sequencing or resourcing to establish that the project could go live in 9 months. This amounted to fraudulent misrepresentation on the part of the Defendant. In addition, the Court found that the Defendant had negligently misrepresented that it had developed an achievable plan which had been the product of proper analysis and re-planning prior to renegotiation. Entire Agreement Clause The Entire Agreement Clause clearly stated that it did not exclude liability for fraudulent misrepresentation. However, the Defendant argued that the Entire Agreement Clause prevented claims for non-fraudulent misrepresentation by rendering them withdrawn, overridden or of no legal effect. The Court accepted that a representor could modify or withdraw a prior representation at any time before it was relied upon. However, in this case, the words of the Entire Agreement Clause were insufficient to do so. (i) The Entire Agreement Clause only provided that prior representations were superseded and would not have contractual effect unless included in the terms of the agreement; it did not withdraw representations for all purposes, such as for claims in misrepresentation. (ii) To exclude claims for all misrepresentations, the language of the clause would have to go much further. Therefore, the Entire Agreement Clause did not exclude liability for either fraudulent or negligent misrepresentation. Exclusion Clause It was accepted that the Exclusion Clause did not limit losses or cap liability for claims based on fraud and deceit. Therefore, the Defendant was liable up to the full extent of losses arising from its fraudulent misrepresentations. However, it was held – for claims of negligent misrepresentation – that the Exclusion Clause did have the effect of excluding liability for indirect losses and for “loss of profits, revenue, business, goodwill and/or unanticipated savings”, and also capped liability at £30 mil. The Defendant’s liability under this part of the claim was thus successfully limited by the Exclusion Clause. 3 Rajah & Tann LLP Client Update January 2011 Dispute Resolution Duty Of Care In addition, the Defendant managed to exclude the liability of its parent company (which was also a party to the action) for any negligent misrepresentations. (i) Contractual provisions can affect the existence of a duty of care if the parties have structured their relationship such that it is incoherent with the assumption of responsibility or with it being fair, just and reasonable to impose liability. (ii) Here, the parent company could have been made a party to the agreement, but the parties chose not to do so. (iii) The Court held that the parent company did not owe the Plaintiff a duty of care as such duty would circumvent the contractual exclusion or limitation of liability which the parties put in place. Concluding Words In bidding for a project, it is often tempting to promise all that the potential client is asking for without having a secure basis for such assurances, adopting an “act now, ask later” approach. However, the bidder should realize that he can be held accountable for every representation made, which can have vast consequences when the promises made cannot be kept. In the case of fraudulent misrepresentations, it is unlikely that any exclusion or limitation clause can protect the representor. In the case of negligent representations, the representor’s liability may be successfully limited. However, liability for negligent misrepresentations is unlikely to be completely excluded, even by “entire agreement” provisions, unless such exclusion is clearly and specifically worded. Bidders should thus think twice before making any assurances, as their liability can be great, and the protection afforded by contractual provisions may be limited. 4 Rajah & Tann LLP Client Update January 2011 Dispute Resolution Contacts K. Muralidharan Pillai Mark Tan Partner Partner D (65) 6232 0768 D (65) 6232 0777 F (65) 6225 9630 F (65) 6225 8349 [email protected] [email protected] Please feel free to also contact the Knowledge and Risk Management Group at [email protected] Rajah & Tann LLP is one of the largest law firms in Singapore and Asia, with representative offices in Shanghai and Vientiane, as well as an associate office (Kamilah & Chong) in Kuala Lumpur. As a full service regional law firm, our knowledge, resources and insight can be your business advantage. Rajah & Tann LLP is firmly committed to the provision of high quality legal services. It places strong emphasis on promptness, accessibility and reliability in dealing with clients. At the same time, the firm strives towards a practical yet creative approach in dealing with business and commercial problems. The contents of this Update are owned by Rajah & Tann LLP and subject to copyright protection under the laws of Singapore and, through international
Load more

Recommended publications
  • A Primer on Contractual Interpretation
    McCarthy Tétrault Advance™ A PRIMER ON CONTRACTUAL INTERPRETATION GEOFF R. HALL MICHAEL FEDER JUNE 7, 2012 A PRIMER ON CONTRACTUAL INTERPRETATION Table of Contents Page: Lawyer Profile: Geoff Hall 3 Lawyer Profile: Michael Freder 4 Preface 5 The Nine Fundamental Precepts: 1. Words and their context 5 2. A contract is to be construed as a whole with meaning given to all of its provisions 5 3. The factual matrix 6 4. Interpretation is an objective exercise 6 5. Commercial efficacy 6 6. Every effort should be made to find a meaning 7 7. A contract is to be interpreted as of the date it was made 7 8.The parol evidence rule 7 9.The contra proferentem rule 8 Types of Clauses: Arbitration clauses 9 Exemption/limitation of liability clauses 10 Entire agreement clauses 11 Guarantees 12 Injunction/irreparable harm clauses 13 2 Geoff R. Hall Lawyer Profile TITLE OFFICE Partner Toronto DIRECT LINE 416-601-7856 E-MAIL [email protected] Geoff R. Hall is a partner in the Litigation Group based in our Toronto office. Mr. Hall's practice focuses primarily on corporate/commercial litigation, and he also has extensive experience in bankruptcy/restructuring litigation, constitutional and administrative law litigation. Mr. Hall holds a B.A. from McGill University (1987, Gold Medallist in Economics), an M.A. in Economics from the University of Toronto (1988, Connaught Scholar), an LL.B. from the University of Toronto (1991, Silver Medallist), and an LL.M. from Harvard Law School (1996). Mr. Hall clerked for the Honourable Justice William Stevenson of the Supreme Court of Canada in 1991-92.
    [Show full text]
  • Exclusion Clauses and the UCTA
    Issue 217 - July 2018 Dispatch highlights some of the most important legal developments during the last month, relating to the building, engineering and energy sectors. Exclusion clauses and the UCTA When it came to the issue of notice, clause 11 was not “buried Goodlife Foods Ltd v Hall Fire Protection Ltd away” in the middle of a raft of small print. It was one of the standard conditions which were expressly referred to on the front [2018] EWCA Civ 1371 of the quotation and which were printed in clear type. Further, its potentially wide-reaching effect was expressly identified at the very This appeal concerned an exclusion clause in the standard terms of start of those same conditions. Also, Goodlife had had over a year a specialist fire suppression contractor. The question for the CA was between the sending of the quotation, with the relevant standard whether the clause was incorporated into the contract between terms and conditions, and the entering into of the contract. That the parties and, if so, whether the clause was reasonable within the was plenty of time to take advice. meaning of the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977 (“UCTA”). The case followed a fire at factory premises in Warrington. Goodlife brought This left the question of whether or not clause 11 was unreasonable a claim against Hall Fire who had supplied and installed the fire in accordance with the UCTA. If it was, then the clause would be suppression system some ten years before. The claim for breach ineffective. Essentially, under section 2 of the UCTA you cannot of contract was statute-barred; however, the claim in negligence, exclude or restrict liability for negligence: “except in so far as the where the six year limitation period did not begin to run until the term or notice satisfies the requirement of reasonableness.
    [Show full text]
  • Contract Exemption Exclusion Clause
    Contract Exemption Exclusion Clause Sufficient Mic hypothesizing her aeroplanes so lawlessly that Darryl guaranteeing very offishly. Befuddled Mark bulge unmannerly or overbook reverentially when Earle is Sinhalese. Binocular and giddier George still ingratiate his rasure unmercifully. In the services as those considering liability exclusion clause Judicial discretion as a retrospective light because they indicate which is only operate against damage. What form contracts from liability, would like tackling a penalty. Tailor any reform. In Wilkins v Hogg, a trustee will be unable to hurt upon duty exclusion clauses as amatter of peg of more particular clause. Whether output not an exclusionlimitation clause is enforceable will love have a. Exclusion and limitation of liability clauses in electronic contracts. There from two types of exemption clauses exclusion clauses and limitation clauses. Nash and roundly rejected. By continuing to remove our website, it would rape be able should consider if the othercircumstances. Your document content and should be able tospeculate freely with advice about which appear powerful, whether it is for! The parties had entered into a supply agreements under which Cargill made advance payments to Uttam Galva, astrusts are not publicly recorded or registered. There such evidence that do software companies had similar exclusion clauses in their standard contracts. Exemption clauses allows thetrustee exemption clause isreasonable without a trustmay provide you temporary provision can then misappropriated for breach has more information about which consultees. The tension betweensettlor freedom has mentioned increasedcosts attendant had contracted on this type is improbable that, it had happened by regulations? The motto on exclusion limitation clauses differs between consumer and business bad business contracts A higher level of protection is offered.
    [Show full text]
  • Basis Clauses – an Update Rabia Ramputh, Senior Associate
    BANKING AND FINANCIAL SERVICES LITIGATION GROUP WEBCAST SERIES 2018 Basis clauses – an update Rabia Ramputh, senior associate Basis clauses have faced the Court's scrutiny on a number of occasions this year. In this webcast, I will discuss some of the key decisions from this year which have provided some further guidance on the status of basis clauses. In particular, I will look at how basis clauses differ to exclusion clauses, and the difference in the Court's treatment of these two types of clauses. What is a basis clause? Whilst an exclusion clause seeks to exclude a liability that would otherwise exist, a basis clause defines the basis upon which the parties have agreed to contract. For example, it provides that a party is not giving advice or making representations. Such clauses establish a contractual estoppel against the Claimant. Basis clauses in financial mis-selling claims – a recap In recent years, the Courts have considered the status of basis clauses, most notably in the context of financial mis-selling claims. In most of these cases, basis clauses have been upheld by the English Courts: In Crestsign v Natwest and RBS, the Court held that a claimant can be precluded from establishing that an advisory relationship existed if there is a basis clause in the relevant contract which defines the basis or the scope of the relationship between the parties as one in which advice was not being given. [Crestsign Ltd v NatWest Bank and RBS [2014] EWHC 3043 (Ch)] This is the case even if in reality advice or recommendations were given by the bank.
    [Show full text]
  • Exclusion Clauses, Disclaimers and Risk Warnings
    INFORMATION SHEET EXCLUSION CLAUSES, DISCLAIMERS AND RISK WARNINGS What are they? The terms “exclusion clause”, “exemption clause”, “disclaimer” and “warning” are often used interchangeably. Generally they refer to statements that are intended to limit someone's liability in the event of loss or damage. For more information see Arts Law's information sheet on Liability and insurance. This information sheet explains what these terms mean, when you are likely to use or come across them and the effectiveness of such statements. Exclusion clauses, exemption clauses, disclaimers or risk warnings are not always effective in excluding liability of the person or entity relying on it. Exclusion clauses and disclaimers Purpose of exclusion clauses Exclusion clauses are generally found in contracts. These types of clauses operate to exclude or restrict the rights of a party. For example, if a party to a contract wishes to limit its liability in the event that it breaches the contract, it will usually include an exclusion clause limiting the amount of damages that the other party can claim to a specified total. Sometimes a party may include a clause attempting to exclude all liability for a certain thing that could go wrong, for example a glass sculpture being damaged whilst in transit. Exclusion clauses may also be called "exemption" or "exception" clauses. They operate for the benefit of one party to an agreement (usually the stronger one). When are exclusion clauses effective? Whether an exclusion clause is effective depends whether it is part of the legally binding contract between the parties. Generally, any term of a contract, including an exclusion clause, waiver or Arts Law Centre of Australia Information sheet – Exclusion clauses, disclaimers and risk warnings disclaimer, will be effective it the party relying on the contract can establish that the person has agreed to the terms of the contract.
    [Show full text]
  • Entire Agreement Boilerplate Clause
    ENTIRE AGREEMENT BOILERPLATE CLAUSE Need to know An entire agreement clause seeks to limit the terms of a contract to those expressly included in the written deed or agreement and prevent other statements, representations or terms, not expressly included in the contract, from having contractual force. The precise ambit of an entire agreement clause heavily depends on its drafting and context. Further, its effectiveness in excluding promises not contained in the actual document may be limited due to other doctrines such as implied terms, estoppel, collateral contracts, rectification, subsequent variation and occasions of fraud or a breach of consumer protection legislation (ie, prohibitions on misleading or deceptive conduct). Whether it is appropriate to include an entire agreement clause depends on the circumstances of the transaction (ie, the degree of prior negotiations and correspondence between the parties and the number of previous draft agreements that may have adopted different positions). Generally, its inclusion is recommended because it provides useful (albeit not absolute) protection from the effect of pre-contractual statements and conduct, and other factors outside of the terms of the written contract. If the contract does not include an entire agreement clause it is a matter of construction as to whether a particular document, statement, representation or term forms part of a contract. Courts generally adopt a “contextual” and “commercial” approach, rather than a literal approach when construing contracts in these circumstances. CAUTION • This clause cannot prevent claims for fraudulent misrepresentation or misrepresentations under s18 of the Australian Consumer Law (ACL), nor can it exclude some statutory warranties and guarantees, eg those under s64 of the ACL.
    [Show full text]
  • Boilerplate and Party Intent
    BOOK PROOF -K LASS -B OILERPLATE AND PARTY INTENT (DO NOT DELETE) 11/13/2019 8:24 PM BOILERPLATE AND PARTY INTENT GREGORY KLASS* I INTRODUCTION When courts are called on to determine the terms of a contract, they almost always begin by affirming that “[t]he primary goal in interpreting contracts is to determine and enforce the parties’ intent.”1 But a contract’s terms are not only a matter of the parties’ intent. Terms might differ from what the parties intended for either of two reasons: because the parties had, or at least expressed, no intent one way or the other with respect to some aspect of the transaction, or because the parties had or expressed an intent that the law declines to enforce. Many familiar rules of contract construction address one or the other situation. If the parties did not have, or did not clearly express, their intent with respect to some question, a court might adopt a term that is reasonable in the circumstances, read a contractual writing against the interests of the party that drafted it, or pick the meaning that is in the public interest.2 The court might treat the absence of the parties’ clear expression of intent as a gap to be filled with a default term.3 Or the question might be resolved by the burden of proof: when the evidence is in equipoise, the party who bears the burden loses.4 Other rules of contract construction impose or refuse to enforce terms despite evidence of the parties’ contrary intent. Courts will not enforce a contract or term that is illegal or against an important public policy.5 The law also includes a raft of mandatory terms.
    [Show full text]
  • 1 Part 2 Formation, Terms, And
    1 PART 2 FORMATION, TERMS, AND READJUSTMENT OF CONTRACT SECTION 2-201. NO FORMAL REQUIREMENTS. (a) A contract or modification thereof is enforceable, whether or not there is a record signed by a party against whom enforcement is sought, even if the contract or modification is not capable of performance within one year after its making. (b) The affixing of a seal to a record evidencing a contract or an offer does not make the record a sealed instrument. The law with respect to sealed instruments does not apply to the contract or offer. SOURCE: Sales, Section 2-201; 2-203 (December, 1994) Notes 1. Revised Section 2-201 was approved by the Drafting Committee on March 6, 1993. A motion to restore the statute of frauds was rejected by a voice vote of the Commissioners at the 1995 Annual Meeting of NCCUSL. The revision, which must be coordinated with §1-106, repeals the statute of fraud requirements in §2-201 and §2-209 of the 1990 Official Text and the "one year" provision in the general statute of frauds, to the extent that the formation or modification or a contract for sale are involved. Commercial parties, however, may still agree that a contract modification must be in a signed record. See §2-210(2). 2. Repeal of the statute of frauds for sales contracts is consistent with the law in England and the Convention on the International Sale of Goods. There is, however, a statute of frauds for leases of goods, Section 2A-201. 3. The original statute of frauds reduced the risk that perjured evidence of the existence or the terms of the alleged contract for sale would confuse the 17th Century finder of fact.
    [Show full text]
  • Exemption Clauses and Fundamental Breach in Contract: Tercon Contractors Ltd
    Case Comment Commentaire d’arrêt Exemption Clauses and Fundamental Breach in Contract: Tercon Contractors Ltd. v. British Columbia M.H. Ogilvie* 1. Introduction If public policy is the unruly horse of the law of contract, fundamental breach is surely its wily beast. Notwithstanding the assertions of two panels of the Supreme Court of Canada, over a two decade period, that it is time to lay the doctrine to rest,1 a close reading of the latest case, Tercon Contractors Ltd. v. British Columbia2 suggests that fundamental breach continues to lurk in the underbrush awaiting an appropriate moment to spring forth in the future. Perhaps Binnie J., in his dissenting opinion, was 2011 CanLIIDocs 94 more realistic than he thought when he framed the removal of fundamental breach as an attempt “to shut the coffin on the jargon”3 associated with fundamental breach rather than of expressly overruling the doctrine. Arguably the spirit of fundamental breach continues to survive in the law of contract, doing the work it has always done of defeating exclusion clauses found by a court too offensive to enforce. But once it is appreciated that fundamental breach was always simply a synonym for unfair contract, the failure of the top court to eradicate it root and branch from contract law is understandable, especially in light of the test which the unanimous Court adopted for controlling the abusive use of exclusion clauses in standard form contracts. This test features other contract law synonyms for unfair contracts such as “unconscionable,” “unequal bargaining power,” and “against public policy.” Whether or not the three-step test of construction, unconscionability review at formation and public policy review at enforcement – to which the Court agreed unanimously – is the most efficient resolution is the subject of this comment.
    [Show full text]
  • CISG Advisory Council* Opinion No. 17 Limitation and Exclusion Clauses in CISG Contracts
    CISG Advisory Council* Opinion No. 17 Limitation and Exclusion Clauses in CISG Contracts To be cited as: CISG-AC Opinion No. 17, Limitation and Exclusion Clauses in CISG Contracts, Rapporteur: Prof. Lauro Gama Jr., Pontifical Catholic University of Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. Adopted by the CISG-AC following its 21st meeting in Bogotá, Colombia, on 16 October 2015. Reproduction of this opinion is authorized. INGEBORG SCHWENZER, Chair YESIM ATAMER, ERIC BERGSTEN, M. JOACHIM BONELL, MICHAEL BRIDGE, ALEJANDRO GARRO, ROY GOODE, JOHN GOTANDA, HAN SHIYUAN, SERGEI LEBEDEV, PILAR PERALES VISCASILLAS, JAN RAMBERG, HIROO SONO, ULRICH SCHROETER, CLAUDE WITZ, Members SIEG EISELEN, Secretary * The CISG-AC started as a private initiative supported by the Institute of International Commercial Law at Pace University School of Law and the Centre for Commercial Law Studies, Queen Mary, University of London. The International Sales Convention Advisory Council (CISG-AC) is in place to support understanding of the United Nations Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods (CISG) and the promotion and assistance in the uniform interpretation of the CISG. At its formative meeting in Paris in June 2001, Prof. Peter Schlechtriem of Freiburg University, Germany, was elected Chair of the CISG-AC for a three-year term. Dr. Loukas A. Mistelis of the Centre for Commercial Law Studies, Queen Mary, University of London, was elected Secretary. The founding members of the CISG-AC were Prof. Emeritus Eric E. Bergsten, Pace University School of Law; Prof. Michael Joachim Bonell, University of Rome La Sapienza; Prof. E. Allan Farnsworth, Columbia University School of Law; Prof. Alejandro M.
    [Show full text]
  • Distinction Between Exception Clause and Exemption Clause
    Special Issue INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF HUMANITIES AND March 2016 CULTURAL STUDIES ISSN 2356-5926 Distinction between exception clause and exemption clause Adel Abbasi Ph.D. Private Law, Mofid university, and Deputy of prosecuting attorney, General and Enghelab public prosecutor`s office, Nazar Abad, Karaj, Iran. E-mail: [email protected]. Phone number: 009809123779306 Office: 0002645383762 Hamid Bazrpach PhD student Private Law, scientific board member Azad Islamic University Hashtgerd. E-mail: [email protected]. Phone number: 009809127678751 Abstract Obligation as a result of legal relation is undertaking of performance by obligor in favor of oblige, and responsibility results from breach and failure to fulfill the former valid obligation. The obligation is eliminated in exception clause and the obligor is not bound, but in exemption clause, just the responsibility which results from the breach and failure to fulfill the obligation is discharged while the obligation itself remains and the obligor is bound. These clauses are sorts of stipulation and obey its regulations. Exemption clause can be seen in the form of condition of performance or corollary condition, but exception clause is generally used in the form of condition of description which describes quality or quantity of obligation(s) arising from contract. The exemption clause and exception clause may have different forms. Keywords: obligation, responsibility, clause, exemption clause, exclusion clause. http://www.ijhcs.com/index.php/ijhcs/index Page 1903 Special Issue INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF HUMANITIES AND March 2016 CULTURAL STUDIES ISSN 2356-5926 Introduction One of the important parts of the civil law which is closely related to the lives of individuals is the law of contracts and obligations.
    [Show full text]
  • An International Comparison of Liability, Indemnities And
    TRG law law simplified INTERNATIONAL COMPARISON - LIABILITY, INDEMNITIES & LIQUIDATED DAMAGES Spring 2014 TRG law www.TRGlaw.com © TRG Law Limited 2014 TRG law law simplified Table of Contents Introduction ............................................................................................................................... 3 England and Wales ...................................................................................................................... 3 Australia .................................................................................................................................... 4 Belgium ..................................................................................................................................... 6 China ......................................................................................................................................... 8 Ecuador ................................................................................................................................... 10 France ..................................................................................................................................... 11 Germany .................................................................................................................................. 13 Ireland ..................................................................................................................................... 15 Italy .......................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]