Liability limitation agreement meaning

Introduction This checklist sits alongside the more detailed Practice Note: Negotiation guide—services agreements. It serves as a quick-look aide and concentrates on the principal, generic points that commonly surface across most forms of services agreement. It leaves out certain specialist matters addressed in Practice Note: Negotiation guide—services agreements that tend to arise only in particular categories of services arrangements or those of greater complexity (eg acceptance testing, audit rights, TUPE, step-in rights, benchmarking and exit assistance). It sets out the customer’s and the supplier’s optimal stances for each topic, then offers a proposed middle-ground position (which is not intended to be comprehensive). For deeper analysis and explanation of each point, refer to Practice Note: Negotiation guide—services agreements. For balanced precedent contracts, which implement much of what is explored here and in the negotiation guide, see Precedents: Services agreement—one-off supply—balanced, Services agreement (ongoing supply)—balanced and Framework services agreement—single contract with call-off orders—balanced. This checklist is relevant only to business-to-business dealings in commercial practice...

Is there an actionable claim? Note: private competition claims are predominantly governed by national law, and procedural as well as substantive rules differ markedly across the EU; accordingly, when planning competition litigation, assessments will need to be made for each individual jurisdiction. Possible causes of action Assess whether UK competition law has been breached (or EU competition law where the period predates the end of the Brexit transition period). Determine if the loss arises from an agreement or concerted practice between undertakings, particularly between competitors (see further, The prohibition on restrictive agreements). Evaluate whether an undertaking that is arguably dominant—typically indicated by a substantial share of a relevant market—caused the loss through abusive conduct contrary to Chapter II of the Competition Act 1998 (and/or Article 102 TFEU if before the end of the Brexit transition period) (see further, The prohibition on abuse of dominance). Consider whether other national or foreign competition laws have...

Use this Checklist when preparing a sub‑contract agreement for a main contractor, or prime contractor, that engages a sub‑contractor to fulfil particular obligations under the main or prime contract. It is appropriate when drafting a sub‑contract for a commercial transaction involving the supply of goods and services, or other generic commercial activities, but it is not intended for a construction sub‑contract, nor for sub‑contracting consultancy services. For an illustrative agreement suitable for a sub‑contract covering a commercial transaction for the supply of goods and services, or comparable generic commercial activities, see Precedent: Sub‑contract agreement. For a more detailed analysis of the legal and practical considerations when entering into a sub‑contract, or when granting permission to sub‑contract, see Practice Note: Subcontracting. Initial matters Verify that the parties named within the contract itself are correct, accurate throughout and complete...

JP Morgan International Finance Ltd v Werealize.Com Ltd; Karonis and others v JP Morgan International Finance Ltd [2025] EWHC 1842 (Comm) What are the practical implications of this case? The ruling delivers valuable guidance on cross-border enforcement of exclusion of liability clauses and on the situations in which ASI relief will be granted to shield such bargains. Key consequences for commercial practitioners include: Drafting immunity and exclusion clauses: the court held that where parties agree that none owes a duty of care, or tortious liability, they have by implication undertaken not to commence proceedings alleging such responsibility. This stands as a significant authority supporting the enforceability of wide immunity clauses. Commercial drafters should consider whether express ‘no sue’ undertakings offer greater certainty than reliance on implied terms Third party protection: the court’s reasoning showed that directors could benefit from immunity clauses via agency mechanisms (clause 33), even though they are not full parties to other elements of the agreement, illustrating how contractual structures...

What are the practical implications of this case? Under statutory limitation principles, an equitable set-off defence is ordinarily not caught by a time bar. Typically, limitation statutes render a claim unenforceable rather than erasing the underlying debt or liability. That is, time limits usually bar remedies without destroying the obligation itself. Hence the defence remains available. Consequently, equitable set-off, operating as a shield and not as enforcement, can still neutralise a claim for defendants who have acted a touch late. However, in this matter the High Court confirmed the parties’ contractual freedom to stipulate a different result: that their contractual time limit extinguishes the underlying liability entirely. Applying the now well-rehearsed canons of contractual construction, Mrs Justice May emphasised the need to read each agreement within its own context. This stands as a reminder to contracting parties not to assume that statutory limitation principles will govern their contractual limitation, and to take care to express their intentions with clarity. In parallel, those already bound by notification provisions should reflect...

Practical implications This decision explored how far a purchaser of a company can rely on an indemnity in a share sale agreement to recover from the seller for losses stemming from an employee’s negligent acts occurring both before and after the business transferred. The indemnity clause stated the seller would hold the buyer harmless for loss ‘directly or indirectly’ arising from services the company (or its agents) supplied before the transfer date, as specified in the agreement. Such wording is a common feature of share sale indemnities. On a straightforward reading, it implies that any loss linked to conduct after completion falls to the buyer, with no route to reimbursement from the seller. The core dispute was how liability should be apportioned for losses spanning pre- and post-transfer where pre-transfer negligence was left uncorrected following completion. This required analysis of two principal questions, including: the issue of continuing breach—on this point, the Court of Appeal (by a majority) reached a view concerning the existence of a...

There are statutory rules governing a company’s auditor liability and the extent to which it can be curtailed. Before 6 April 2008, a company was prohibited from excusing or indemnifying its auditors for any negligence, default, breach of duty, or breach of trust connected with the company that arose in carrying out the audit of the accounts. That prohibition has since changed, and such protection is now allowed, so long as it is either an indemnity covering the costs of successfully defending proceedings or a liability limitation agreement. Furthermore, additional requirements concerning an auditor’s liability and its caps may apply to a listed company, an AIM company, or a company whose securities are listed on the AQSE Main Market, AQSE Growth Market, or AQSE Trading (previously the NEX Exchange Main Board, NEX Exchange Growth Market, and NEX Exchange Secondary Market), though those matters fall outside the ambit of this Practice Note. Some or all of the statutory measures addressing auditors and liability limitation agreements may equally extend to other companies...

Introduction This Practice Note is part of our LLB Contract Law suite, aimed at students. In contract law, a vitiating factor is something that damages the legal validity of the consent needed for a binding agreement. One such factor is misrepresentation, where one party makes a false statement to another. This Practice Note outlines misrepresentation in English contract law, showing how inaccurate pre-contract statements undermine real consent and render contracts voidable rather than void. It sets out the elements of an actionable claim (a false statement of fact or law, inducement and attribution), separates fraudulent, negligent and innocent misrepresentation, and reviews the key cases alongside the Misrepresentation Act 1967. Particular emphasis is placed on remedies, especially rescission and damages, and on the equitable bars to rescission (affirmation, lapse of time, impossibility of restitution, third-party rights and judicial discretion). Throughout, it brings together judicial reasoning, policy considerations and exam-focused guidance, illustrating how modern case law balances fairness to the misled party with certainty in commercial transactions. Overview Definition and...

Practice Note This Practice Note consists of two strands created to help dispute resolution practitioners remain up to date with developments in case law that affect their field, or which influence civil litigation procedure more generally: selected forthcoming appeals to the Supreme Court are highlighted below; see Key forthcoming appeals to the Supreme Court—2022 summaries of significant appeal decisions in England and Wales (ie rulings of the Court of Appeal and Supreme Court and, where appropriate, certain judgments of the Competition Appeal Tribunal, Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, Court of Justice of the European Union), and ECtHR, which we have covered; see: Key forthcoming appeal cases—2022 You can navigate this content using the table of contents in the left-hand margin. Alternatively, search this tracker using [CTRL]+[F]. This material is not intended to be a comprehensive register of every appeal or major decision relevant to dispute resolution practitioners. Key forthcoming appeals to the Supreme Court—2022 Tort and negligence ...

This Agreement is entered into on [ date ] Parties [ Insert name of party ] [ of OR a company incorporated in England and Wales under number [ insert registered number ] with its registered office at ] [ insert address ] (Party 1); and [ Insert name of party ] [ of OR a company incorporated in England and Wales under number [ insert registered number ] with its registered office at ] [ insert address ] (Party 2), each of Party 1 and Party 2 being a party and, together, the parties. BACKGROUND Party 1 supplies [ insert description of goods and/or services ]. Party 2 supplies [ insert description of goods and/or services ]. The parties intend to submit a Bid as a joint tender to the Customer in answer to the Invitation to Tender. The parties seek to state their obligations and manage their rights concerning the Bid and, if the...

This Agreement is entered into on [ date ]. Parties [ Insert name of licensor ], a company incorporated in [ England and Wales ] under number [ insert registered number ] whose registered office is at [ insert address ] (Licensor); and [ Insert name of licensee ], a company incorporated in [ England and Wales ] under number [ insert registered number ] whose registered office is at [ insert address ] (Licensee), Each of the Licensor and the Licensee is a party, and together the Licensor and the Licensee constitute the parties. Background The Licensee is [ insert details of the Licensee’s background/background to licence or relevant transaction. ] The Licensor has agreed to provide the Licensor Content to the Licensee and to grant the Licensee a licence to use the Licensor Content in accordance with the terms of this Agreement...

This Agreement is dated [ insert date ] Parties [ insert name ] [ of OR a company incorporated in [ England and Wales ] under number [ insert registered number ] whose registered office is at ] [ insert address ] (Assignor) [ insert name ] [ of OR a company incorporated in [ England and Wales ] under number [ insert registered number ] whose registered office is at ] [ insert address ] (Assignee) Each of the Assignor and the Assignee is a party; together they are the parties. Background The Assignor owns the copyright and database rights in the Database. The Assignee is [ insert description of the Assignee’s background/background to assignment or relevant transaction ]. The Assignor agrees to assign all such copyright and database rights and to migrate the contents of the Database to the Assignee, and the Assignee agrees to accept that assignment and to assist and co‑operate with...

Contract law regulates the recoverable loss arising under a limitation of liability provision in a share purchase agreement where a warranty is breached. Warranties comprise contractual declarations or assurances concerning the state of the target company, its operations, assets and liabilities. Should a seller provide a warranty in a share purchase agreement that later turns out inaccurate, untrue or misleading, the buyer may pursue a breach of warranty claim and seek damages from the seller for losses thereby suffered by the buyer...