Font Size

The Dangers of a Memoranda of Agreement


Lawdit Solicitors - Expert Author

Legal Articles
Submit Articles   Back to Articles

Written on 28 October 2014

There has been much debate on the subject of whether Heads of Terms or ‘Memoranda of Agreement’ (MoA), are binding on the parties. A MoA is seen as a precursor to entering into a more formal agreement, and much rather seen to be a mere statement of commercial intent of entering a contract.

However, whatever the intent may be, a MoA, if not carefully drafted, can expose the involved parties to inadvertent liabilities, effectively making it a binding agreement. A recent case quite clearly demonstrates the issues in much greater detail: Unaoil Limited v Leighton Offshore Pte Limited [2014] EWHC 2965 (Comm) (12 September 2014).

This case involved an oil company Leighton Offshore who were approached by Unaoil for a large oil infrastructure project in Iraq. Unaoil intended to team up with Leighton to increase their chances for a successful bid on the project. Both parties then entered into a MoA, setting out that Leighton would sub-contract some of the project work to Unaoil, setting out the payment terms, including explicitly stating that Leighton would pay a non-refundable advance of $12.5mto Unaoil. It also contained a liquidated damages clause of $40m.

After a relationship breakdown, though Leighton proceeded alone and won tendering for the contract, they refused to engage Unaoil as sub-contractor as per the MoA. Subsequently, Unaoil sued Leighton for breach of the MoA for $82.5m on the grounds of the $12.5m non-refundable advance, $40m liquidated damages alongside $30m loss of profits.

The question therefore arises whether the liquidated damages clause amounts to an unenforceable penalty.

The Court thus held that the MoA was “very badly drafted” and that the dispute in actual fact arose due to the poor drafting of the agreement. As a result, the Court largely relied on witness statements and thus awarded Unaoil the non-refundable advance debt of $12.5 m and a further $5.8m in loss of profits.

This case serves as a reminder to contracting parties that they should not enter into a MoA, or any other agreement, without paying careful attention to the terms within it.

Additionally, it is wise not to assume that a MoA has no contractual liability even where it is mislabelled as “non-binding”.

Written by Murshida Khan, a graduate student of Law

About the Author

Lawdit Solicitors offer services and advice for litigation, commercial contracts, Intellectual Property and IT legal agreements. We are experts in commercial law with a heavy emphasis on Intellectual Property, Internet and e-commerce law. Lawdit is a member of the International Trademark Association, the Solicitors' Association of Higher Court Advocates and we are the appointed Solicitors to the largest webdesign association in the world, the United Kingdom Website Designers Association.

Follow us @Scopulus_News

Article Published/Sorted/Amended on Scopulus 2014-11-06 10:05:23 in Legal Articles

All Articles

Copyright © 2004-2021 Scopulus Limited. All rights reserved.