Termination of Contract

Termination of ContractThe High Court’s decision in Koompahtoo v Sanpine spelled out the circumstances which can give you a right, under the common law, to terminate a contract. You’ll have a right to seek termination of a contract if:

  1. an essential term of the contract was breached; or
  2. a non-essential term of the contract, causing substantial loss, was breached; or
  3. repudiation of the contract took place.

What Is An Essential Term Of A Contract?

Essential terms are also known as conditions; they are distinct from warranties. A term is said to be essential when it is of such importance to the party receiving a contractual promise “that he would not have entered into the contract unless he had been assured of a strict or a substantial performance of the promise” and the other party knows or ought know of this.

A breach of an essential term will give the innocent party a right to terminate a contract and seek to recover damages for the loss of contract.

A breach of a warranty, on the other hand, will not give you a right to terminate a contract. The available remedy is to seek recovery of damages caused by a breach of warranty (Sale of Goods Act 1896 (Qld)).

It should be noted that even though most contracts use specific language to differentiate between essential and non–essential terms, for example, by using words like ‘conditions’ and ‘warranties’, such usage is not compulsory and the meaning of terms will be determined by the Court, including the meaning of ‘conditions’ if such words were used (Wickman Machine Tool Sales Ltd. v L. Schuler A.G. [1974] AC 235, [1973] 2 All ER 39).

What is a non-essential term of a contract?

A non-essential term is a term occupying a place somewhere between a condition and a warranty (Ankar Pty Ltd v National Westminster Finance (Australia) Ltd [1987] HCA 15 at 561-2), which is why it’s often referred to as an intermediate term in common law. An intermediate, or non-essential term is classified as a term of lesser importance than an essential term because its breach doesn’t give you a right to terminate a contract but its legal value is higher than that of a warranty—a breach of warranty only gives you a right to damages caused by a warranty breach (Sanpine Pty Ltd v Koompahtoo Local Aboriginal Land Council & Ors [2006] NSWCA 291 at 176).

A contract can be terminated, however, if a breach of an intermediate term is sufficiently serious. To determine if a sufficiently serious breach of an intermediate term took place, the courts will consider:

  1. if the whole of the contract was affected by the breach so that its fulfilment is seen substantially different from that originally intended by the parties, as a result of the breach;
  2. the seriousness of the breach will depend on the consequences of the breach, both actual and foreseeable, for the innocent party;
  3. the onus of proof is on the innocent party to show the seriousness of the consequences of the breach which will be assessed by the court.

What is a repudiation of a contract?

In common law, repudiation may refer to conduct which indicates an unwillingness or an inability of a party to perform a substantial part of the contract. It can demonstrate itself in a form of an intention to no longer be bound by the contract or “to fulfil it only in a manner substantially inconsistent with the party’s obligations.”

In Freeth v Burr ((1874), L.R. 9 C.P. 208 at p. 214), Justice Keating said : “It is not a mere refusal or omission of one of the contracting parties to do something which he ought to do, that will justify the other in repudiating the contract; but there must be an absolute refusal to perform his part of the contract.”

This is an important point to keep in mind—a party does not necessarily repudiates a contract when it acts on misinterpreted terms of it (although repudiation may arise if the party persists on wrongful interpretation after the terms have been clarified and brought to their attention). If a party to a contract misinterprets its terms but the other party, instead of trying to clarify the terms, attempts to terminate the contract for repudiation, it may find itself being a repudiating party, giving the party that was acting wrongfully in the first place an opportunity to terminate the contract.

Unexpected twists like that highlight the importance of professional legal advice in the area of commercial law.

A team of experienced solicitors at Hollingworth & Spencer is available to assist your business in matters of commercial law should you require any advice.

Intellectual Property Protection Strategy

Intellectual PropertyHow much information do you think a humble 8GB USB stick can hold? Let’s run some numbers quickly: a typical 1,500 words Microsoft Word document should be about 20kb which means you can save roughly 400,000 documents on an 8GB stick or 3,200,000 on a 64GB one. More than three million documents on a $50 storage device. Impressive.

There was a case in the Supreme Court of New South Wales back in 2004, before USB sticks were invented, Woolworths v Olson where an injunction (a restraint of trade) was sought, and granted against Mr Olson by his then former employer Woolworths. What happened?

Mr Olson had access, through his employment, to valuable confidential information codenamed “Project Mercury” – a software system designed to transform Woolworths’ product supply procedures. Only key employees were privy to this information, and Mr Olson was one such employee. He received and accepted a job offer from Franklins, a direct Woolworths’ competitor. On the last day of his employment with Woolworths, Mr Olson sent by email several files relating to Project Mercury, from his work computer to his wife’s home computer. These were extremely confidential and valuable. Woolworths discovered the theft and took Mr Olson to court seeking a so called “restraint of trade”, that is, a court order preventing Mr Olson from being employed by Franklins for at least some time. Initially losing at the first hearing, Woolworths was granted an injunction against Mr Olson by the NSW Court of Appeal.

Mr Olson did not have a USB stick and only a handful of files, not millions, were stolen. Today though, an entire corporate database or millions of files can be stored on a small storage device and taken to the outside world without anyone noticing anything (Edward Snowden anyone?).

A Value Worth Protecting

Unlike tangible property, it’s hard to put a dollar value on intellectual property. How much does information cost? Is it worth protecting at all? Do you want to find out the hard and expensive way or would you rather prefer to safeguard your business against intellectual property loss or damage?

Even though most businesses realise that intellectual property must be protected from competitors, too many still make a mistake of assuming that there’s little can be done to protect confidential IP from its own workers. While it’s normal and indeed commendable to trust your employees, it’s equally foolish not to have some protective measures in place if things go wrong, which they do sometimes.

Here is a list of measures you can implement in your business to minimise exposure to intellectual property theft or unauthorised use:

  • Document control and management system: as an intellectual property owner, you should be able to know at any instance what kind of access and to what kind of information is available to any particular person in your organization at all times. An audit log must be maintained showing who accessed what and when that will help identify a potential breach should a suspicion arise;
  • Employee education: make sure your workers are aware of the intellectual property’s value and of the consequences of tempering with it in an unauthorised manner;
  • Email control system: keeping a log of email traffic is both preventative and investigative tool that will help safeguard your IP (recall the Woolworths case above);
  • External email control system: with web based email services such as Gmail or Hotmail, it’s easy to bypass an internal email system and send away intellectual property through one of these services – your business should be protected from that by implementing a system which will not allow access to external email services;
  • Review policy: the likelihood of IP theft will be reduced if every employee is aware that the digital trail they leave behind when they decide to move on will be reviewed to ensure no breach of intellectual property has occurred.

To help you navigate through the complexities of intellectual property issues, Hollingworth & Spencer Lawyers are available for any assistance your business may require. To quote one famous American, “By failing to prepare, you are preparing to fail.” It was true in 18th century, and still true in 21st.

International Wills

Estate Planning and WillsQueensland Parliament has recently moved to amend the Succession Bill 1981 (Qld) to enable a Uniform Law on the Form of an International Will (also known as Convention of International Wills) to take effect in Queensland. Australia is expected to sign the Convention of International Wills once the relevant Australian jurisdictions have amended their individual legislations.

Key Points of the International Wills

An international will is going to be valid in all jurisdictions or countries signatory to the convention regardless of:

  • where the will was made;
  • where the assets of the willmaker are located, and
  • the willmaker’s country of residence.

Main Principles of the International Wills

A valid international will must be:

  • in a written form;
  • signed by the willmaker;
  • made for one willmaker only;
  • witnessed by at least 3 individuals: 2 witnesses and 1 authorised person (in Australia, a solicitor or a public notary);
  • certified by an authorised person of its compliance with international will’s requirements;
  • acknowledged of its content by the willmaker;

Practical Implications of the International Wills in Queensland

Some of the effects to the Succession Bill 1981 (Qld) amendments relating to international wills:

  • international wills may be recognised as valid in Queensland courts;
  • a Queensland court may not have to examine the foreign countries’ laws to decide if the will has been lawfully executed;
  • individuals with assets or beneficiaries located in Australian and overseas jurisdictions will be able to maximise flexibility in their estate planning.

Limitations of the International Wills

It’s helpful to keep in mind that the Convention of International Wills is only binding in countries and jurisdictions who have signed the convention and enacted relevant legislation to give effect to it. Some countries have signed the convention but have yet to ratify it while many others have neither signed it nor ratified it.

Countries that have ratified the convention: Belgium, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Canada, Cyprus, Ecuador, France, Italy, Libya, Niger, Portugal, Slovenia and the former Yugoslavia.

Countries that have signed but not yet ratified the convention: Iran, Laos, the Russian Federation, Sierra Leone, the United Kingdom and the United States of America.