How to terminate a contract - Part 1 - Breach

We want out. For whatever reason. But trouble can lie ahead if we terminate if we’re not entitled to, or if we don’t comply with what we agreed in the contract. In this part 1 we look at the scenario where the other party is in breach of the contract. In part 2 we’ll look at termination for other reasons.

How to terminate a contract - Part 1 - Breach

Unfortunately, a breach will often be the most common reason for deciding to terminate a contract. On the other hand, quite logically, this is also where the law can give us more assistance.

1. What does the contract say?

Most written contracts will say something about termination for breach of contract and in practice this needs to be our starting point.

A typical scheme might be:

  • unremediable material breach: immediate termination on notice; and
  • remediable material breach: immediate termination if the breach is not cured during a particular period, e.g. 30 days from receiving written notice.

There are plenty of areas for discussion here. For example, how to define “material”, although this doesn’t seem to be a major issue that courts have often had to wrestle with. We probably know what it is when we see it as it will usually relate to one of the key obligations of the party in question e.g. to pay money, or to supply the agreed goods or services. And “remediable”. Non-payment can quite soon be remedied (depending on the approvals process that we may have set ourselves, e.g. requiring more than one signature, or even board approval for large payments). If we can take back the goods and fix them or replace them with others that comply with the contract, then this seems remediable too. On the other hand, making our confidential information public can’t really be fixed. And it is possible by careful drafting to create deadlines which if missed could constitute an unremediable breach (though normally time of performance is not an automatic ground for termination – and also can be dependent on serving a completion notice or otherwise making time of the essence).

We also need to be alert for any limitations on termination that may appear elsewhere in the contract. So there might be an express right to dispute an invoice and escalate within our organisations before any more drastic action can be taken. Or a “force majeure” clause which excuses late delivery or non-performance (though this often comes with conditions regarding the precise circumstances in which we can be excused, what it can be used for – often not for non-payment – and others such as the need to give prompt written notice that we are claiming to be excused from performing). Rights of set off may also affect the ability to terminate for failure to make a payment. We also find “exclusive remedy” clauses e.g. we are limited to liquidated damages, or repair or replacement only for the particular breach we are alleging.

On the other hand, we might have a very widely drafted termination clause that entitles a party to terminate for “any breach” or for a combination of breaches that individually wouldn’t be material, which would make termination more easily available and mean the standard of performance expected will be higher.

If the breach falls squarely within what was envisaged by the contract, then we still need to follow the mechanics the contract lays down – so if we need to give 30 days written notice by courier etc. then we should normally do as agreed.

2. The contract doesn’t say anything (or we don’t like what it does say)

Even if the contract doesn’t provide anything in particular (which is clearly not something we would advise, but which judging by the popularity of this post, seems to be more common than we might think), then the law will still permit us to terminate in serious cases. And we might want to fall back on general legal principles if the contract tells us we should give e.g. 180 days notice, or termination depends on some other condition that we don’t agree should apply in the particular circumstances.

However, we do need to read the agreement carefully – if it states that the grounds for termination it includes are the exclusive or only ones, then we could find that other general grounds aren’t available to us. Even here we need to remember that, if the contract attempts to restrict or deprive the other party of a legal remedy, then unfair contract terms legislation can make this subject to a test of fairness or reasonableness.

In English law, grounds for termination generally fall under the heading of “repudiation” and can take various forms:

a) Breach of a condition

This possibly deserves an entire explanation (or book) in itself but contract terms may generally be “conditions” (essential obligations, breach of which entitles us to terminate) or “warranties” (lesser obligations, breach of which entitles us only to damages). We regularly see important items consigned to “warranties” sections of contracts and, although the courts won’t always enforce unquestioningly the terminology we use, they may infer an intention to give a term a particular legal status from the labels we agree. So if something is central to our expectations under the contract then really we should say clearly that we expect the remedy for breach to be an entitlement to terminate. If we are dealing with breach of a “warranties and representations” clause then that may be different again – see section 3 below.

b) Serious breach of an intermediate term

Just to make things more interesting, some terms are neither warranties nor conditions, and so are classed as intermediate or “innominate” terms. Depending on the seriousness of the breach, they may give a right of termination, or just to claim damages. If the breach “goes to the root of the contract” or its effect would be to “deprive the innocent party of substantially the whole benefit of the contract” we may be entitled to terminate, though this then becomes a matter for the court’s interpretation.

c) Renunciation/Anticipatory breach

If one party refuses to perform or shows their intention not to perform the contract or to walk away from it, then this may be sufficient for the other party to terminate. This needs some careful consideration as it really needs to relate to non-fulfilment of the entire contract and not just some part or a different method of performance from that agreed.

If we do have a renunciation by the other party, then we can accept it (in which case we should make clear that we are choosing to do so). Be aware that if we don’t do so, or take any other action consistent with electing to continue with the contract, then we may be taken to have “affirmed” the contract and won’t later be able to rely on the renunciation.

If we are terminating for repudiation, then in our termination notice we should clearly say so, particularly if our written agreement says something different. As you may expect, this is not something to embark on lightly. If we get this wrong and the grounds for termination don’t exist as we claim, then we ourselves can be taken to have renounced the contract and can find ourselves on the end of a claim for damages in return.

3. The breach is of a representation

Representations can be extremely tricky: the law comes from various different sources, they can be made outside or inside the contract, and what happens if they turn out to be wrong (misrepresentation) depends on how they were made (fraudulently, negligently or innocently). For our purposes here, we can consider them as false statements of fact made by one party that induce the other party into entering into the contract.

One of the main consequences of having been induced into making a contract by a misrepresentation is that “rescission” may be available – so instead of terminating for the future the contract is entirely undone and the parties need to be put back in the position they were in before. For fraudulent misrepresentation, subject to certain exceptions, we always have a right of rescission. For negligent or innocent misrepresentation, the court may award damages in lieu of rescission.

The representation can become a term of the contract, i.e. where the maker promises in the contract that the statement is true. (It is not 100% necessary to call it a representation in the text but if for example we have called it a warranty, as noted above, then we may later be in difficulty to claim it was in fact a representation). If the statement is not true then this is a breach of contract and we can look to either the contractual termination provisions or to whether the breach is such as to constitute a repudiation as noted above. If it was just a warranty then we wouldn’t be entitled to terminate.

Although this post isn’t about damages, note that the measure of damages may be different depending on whether the representation was made fraudulently, negligently or (if damages are available at all) innocently. The type of damages also depends on whether the representation became a contractual term: if it did we might be able to choose between contractual damages (including future losses e.g. losses of profits etc.) or misrepresentation damages (undoing the contract and putting us back in the starting position).

4. Conclusions

English common law gives basic rights of termination for serious breaches of contract. However, these are subject to various limitations and the bar is set quite high if we wish to be released from the contract and not simply to claim damages. Clearly, the best protection for all parties, with scope for fewest arguments, is to control or extend these rights through a carefully drafted termination clause adapted to the particular features and risks presented by the transaction we are entering into.


READ THIS NEXT: How to terminate a contract – Part 2 – No Breach

  • EU International Data Transfers - new 2021 Standard Contractual Clauses

    EU International Data Transfers - new 2021 Standard Contractual Clauses

    The European Commission has issued a new set of standard contractual clauses (“SCCs”) to address new requirements under the GDPR, changes in the digital economy, but most importantly the European Court’s judgment in Schrems II requiring supplementary measures for some exports. The new SCCs are comprehensive and fill some gaps; but they require data importers and exporters to invest significantly in documenting how they will overcome local government surveillance laws.

  • Adtech Regulation under the EU’s draft Digital Services Act

    Adtech Regulation under the EU’s draft Digital Services Act

    A lot has been made of the liability and transparency provisions of the EU’s proposed Digital Services Act.

    However, there are also a few advertising-specific obligations (proposed to be) coming for online platforms that deserve a closer look.

  • "Due diligence" obligations for EU online platforms

    The quickest-possible look at the EU’s draft Digital Services Act and proposed new obligations for intermediaries and online platforms.

    Eden Legal will return with additional posts on: (1) liability for illegal content; and (2) specific adtech-related obligations, under the proposed Regulation.

    #Lawinagraphic – minimum wordiness, maximum user-friendliness.

  • How will Artificial Intelligence Systems be regulated in the EU?

    How will Artificial Intelligence Systems be regulated in the EU?

    The European Commission has put forward a proposed Regulation on a European Approach for Artificial Intelligence, also known as the “Artificial Intelligence Act”. It’s a proposal and before entering into application faces a likely lengthy path through the EU institutions which seems bound to produce a hefty amount of debate and amendments.

  • 2021 will be the Year of Smart Contracts

    2021 will be the Year of Smart Contracts

    Smart contracts are here. Eden Legal’s very initial, very personal thoughts on them.

  • GDPR EU/UK Representative - do we need one?

    GDPR EU/UK Representative - do we need one?

    Everything you need to know about appointing an EU and/or UK representative as required by the GDPR.

    Update 14 February 2021: under the EU Council’s agreed position on the future E-Privacy Regulation, providers of electronic communications services, providers of publicly available directories, senders of direct marketing over electronic communications services, and anyone using processing and storage capabilities or collecting information processed by or emitted by or stored in the end-users’ terminal equipment (i.e. adtech!) will also be required to appoint a representative in the EU and communicate it to the relevant national supervisory authority.

  • GDPR and Brexit - take us to the bridge

    GDPR and Brexit - take us to the bridge

    The EU-UK Trade and Cooperation Agreement has avoided major changes to personal data flows between the EEA and UK at least until 30 April 2021. However, if we process data of individuals in both the EEA and the UK, then we face the prospect of complying with two similar but distinct regulatory regimes.

  • The ICO fines Marriott and BA for GDPR Breaches - 10 Takeaways

    The ICO fines Marriott and BA for GDPR Breaches - 10 Takeaways

    If you’re handling personal data subject to EU (and/or UK) laws then you would do well to read the UK Information Commissioner’s (“ICO”) decisions to fine Marriott and BA for failures to have in place appropriate cyber-security measures. And this post for 10 more easily digestible takeaways.

  • EU Court invalidates Privacy Shield - what to do?

    EU Court invalidates Privacy Shield - what to do?

    The Court of Justice of the EU has struck down the EU Commission’s EU-U.S. Privacy Shield Framework decision, but in principle left in place the EU Commission’s Standard Contractual Clauses, which organisations can sign in order to impose EU-style data protection obligations on non-EU data importers. For now, where we used to rely the Privacy Shield framework, the pragmatic approach may be to sign SCCs – but the story won’t end there.

  • How do we become certified under the EU-U.S. Privacy Shield?

    How do we become certified under the EU-U.S. Privacy Shield?

    The EU-U.S. Privacy Shield framework may be an interesting tool to permit international transfers of personal data without any other permissions or contracts.
    UPDATE: The Privacy Shield framework remains in place and we can still apply to be certified, but on 16 July 2020, the EU Court of Justice decided that it could no longer be used to authorise transfers of personal data from the EU/EEA/UK to the USA, and other mechanisms need to be used.