Contract for Differences meaning

This Checklist reviews the entitlement to suspend under the Housing Grants, Construction and Regeneration Act 1996 (HGCRA 1996), and the matters that ought to be carefully considered before any party opts to suspend carrying out its obligations and duties under a construction contract. Is there a general common law right to suspend a contract? No. At common law, a party to a contract has no general right to pause or withhold ongoing performance of contractual duties when the other party is in breach, unless the breach is sufficiently serious to constitute a ‘repudiatory breach’, thereby permitting the innocent party to rescind or bring the contract to an end (see Practice Notes: Termination of a construction contract—Common law termination and Repudiation of contract). How does the right to suspend arise in a construction contract?...

This guidance sits within the Procurement Act 2023 framework and focuses on public procurement under the Procurement Act 2023 (PA 2023). New in-scope procurements must run under PA 2023. For background on the regime, see Practice Note: Introduction to the Procurement Act 2023-PA 2023. Procurements launched before PA 2023 began on 24 February 2025 remain under the prior legislation-the Public Contracts Regulations 2015, SI 2015/102; the Utilities Contracts Regulations 2016, SI 2016/274; the Concession Contracts Regulations 2016, SI 2016/273; and the Defence and Security Public Contracts Regulations 2011, SI 2011/1848. For headline differences from the old regime, see Checklist: Procurement Act 2023-key changes. For transitional details, see Practice Note: Procurement Act 2023 transitional and saving arrangements-PA 2023. Special regime contracts This Checklist gives a quick reference to the core features of special regime contracts under PA 2023. PA 2023, s 10(6) defines a special regime contract as: a concession contract (see PA 2023, s 8) a defence and security contract (see PA 2023, s...

At first glance, a Scots law building contract, professional appointment or collateral warranty will seem much like its English law counterpart to any experienced practitioner. Look more closely, though, and you will find a range of subtle but significant distinctions that merit attention. This Checklist sets out practical pointers for converting an English law construction contract into one that complies with Scots law (often referred to as ‘kilting’ a contract). It is not comprehensive and proceeds on the basis that the parties are using standard mid-market construction forms without extensive project-specific drafting. Where such bespoke drafting is included, further divergences between Scots and English law may need to be considered. Execution issues There is no concept of ‘execution as a deed’ under Scots law. Scots law documents are ordinarily signed in ‘self-proving’ form pursuant to the Requirements of Writing (Scotland) Act 1995. They are not front-dated; instead, each party inserts its own signing date within its respective execution block...

Background The initial iteration of the MCC‑AI appeared in September 2023 ahead of the EU AI Act, setting out a systematic route for sourcing AI. Following the EU AI Act’s formal entry into force on 13 June 2024, the Commission has updated the model clauses to better match regulatory expectations. The latest release comprises: a comprehensive edition for high‑risk AI systems a streamlined variant for non‑high‑risk AI systems a commentary detailing how to tailor and apply the clauses Why should companies get acquainted with the MCC-AI? The MCC‑AI offers a practical framework for businesses buying or supplying AI services, by setting a shared baseline of obligations. The clauses foster alignment between parties on core compliance areas — transparency, risk management and accountability — consistent with the EU AI Act. By tailoring MCC‑AI clauses to their circumstances, contracts and operations, organisations can speed up negotiations, cut legal ambiguity and show they are prepared for regulation. This is especially useful in a...

The Framework Agreement 2016 The earlier JCT Framework Agreement, issued in 2016 (FA 2016), stated it was aligned with the Public Contracts Regulations 2015 (PCR 2015), SI 2015/102. Nevertheless, where a framework involved multiple contractors, it offered no objective method for sharing work between them. Any process for allocating work therefore had to be drafted on a bespoke basis and appended to the Framework Agreement. The Framework Agreement 2024 FA 2024 broadly reflects FA 2016 and, like the wider JCT 2024 suite, makes only minimal changes from its 2016 forerunner. FA 24 functions as an overarching umbrella arrangement between a single employer and a single contractor, labelled a ‘Provider’, which can be confusing when used alongside other JCT contracts that use ‘Contractor’. A call-off mechanism is provided to instruct individual ‘Tasks’ under the terms of an agreed ‘Underlying Contract’. It is presented as suitable for both private and public sector use...

What has ‘gone live’? From 24 February 2025, PA 2023 has gone live, so the core provisions of the new UK public procurement regime now govern covered procurements. This spans public contracts let by central government, local authorities, and other public sector bodies for goods, services, and works above the applicable financial thresholds. For background reading, see Practice Note: Introduction to the Procurement Act 2023—PA 2023. How did we get here? Implementation followed an extensive journey, beginning with consultations under the previous government on post‑Brexit reforms intended to streamline rules and enhance transparency. After parliamentary scrutiny and engagement with stakeholders, PA 2023 received Royal Assent on 26 October 2023, with a phased transition promised so contracting authorities and suppliers could adapt. A go‑live first set for 28 October 2024 moved to 24 February 2025 to allow for implementing legislation, system updates, and a structured six‑month learning period starting in August 2024 to equip stakeholders with guidance and training to comply with the new regime. The go‑live marks...

This Practice Note on economic torts This note summarises, at a high level, the key differences when pursuing claims for lawful means conspiracy, unlawful means conspiracy, the tort of unlawful interference, and procuring a breach of contract. Practice Notes: Civil conspiracy claims (economic tort) Lawful means conspiracy (civil action) Unlawful means conspiracy (civil action) Economic tort of unlawful interference The tort of procuring a breach of contract Closely connected to procuring a breach of contract is the so‑called ‘Marex tort’, a cause of action founded on an alleged deliberate infringement by the defendant of the claimant’s rights in a judgment debt; see Practice Note: The Marex tort (interference with a judgment debt). These claims may (though need not) involve a fiduciary or agent, including company directors. For further guidance, see: Claims against directors—key considerations for dispute resolution practitioners Agency disputes Fiduciary Duties Fiduciary duties—remedies for breach Such causes...

This Practice Note is archived and no longer updated or maintained. It outlines the differences introduced in the NEC4 standard form construction contracts when set against the NEC3 versions. It also summarises the changes from NEC3 across the standard forms. The spotlight is on the NEC4 Engineering and Construction Contract (ECC), though many ECC revisions mirror those rolled out across the broader NEC suite. Many of the points made in relation to the ECC are indicative of suite-wide adjustments. The NEC characterises NEC4 as an ‘evolution not revolution’, building on NEC3. The bulk of NEC4’s revisions appear aimed at embedding sound practice and/or cutting reliance on Z clauses (ie bespoke amendments). For further details on NEC contracts in general, including their structure, see Practice Note: NEC contracts—introduction. Publication of NEC4 The NEC4 contracts were issued by the Institution of Civil Engineers on 22 June 2017...

Introduction The adoption of sewers is the mechanism by which sewers are vested in the sewerage undertaker or an appointed sewerage company, after which the undertaker meets the cost of maintenance. A sewer adoption agreement (described in this Practice Note as a ‘section 104 agreement’) is the contract that developers or, in Ofwat’s terminology, ‘self-lay providers’ (SLPs) enter into with the undertaker when the developer wishes the undertaker to assume responsibility for sewerage infrastructure they have built so that it becomes a public sewer. A sewer adoption agreement can likewise be used where a section 160 Water Industry Act 1991 (WIA 1991) arrangement exists under which the undertaker agrees to carry out works connected with constructing sewerage infrastructure at the relevant person’s expense. The statutory basis for undertakers to enter such agreements is WIA 1991, s 104. The approach to adopting new sewerage connections currently differs between England and Wales. Procedure for the adoption of sewers England In England, developers may provide their own sewerage infrastructure,...