Contracts are often amended to take account of changed circumstances. But care is needed to avoid the pitfalls.
Think about the rest of the contract
Where the proposed change only relates to one or two provisions of the contract, it's easy to overlook the potential knock-on effects on other provisions.
For example, in Unaoil v Leighton (2014), a dispute arose over a contract for oil infrastructure in Iraq. The original contract price was about $75 million, with a liquidated damages clause providing for recovery of about $40 million in the event of breach. However, when the price was later reduced to $55 million, no corresponding adjustment was made to the $40 million liquidated damages figure. This led to a finding that the liquidated damages clause was “extravagant and unconscionable” and could not be enforced, based on the rule against penalties. It is therefore critical to consider the impact of any changes on other provisions which may also need adjustment, such as:
- Termination provisions;
- Liability provisions (including liquidated damages clauses);
- Payment provisions; and
- Service levels/standards.
Avoid "informal" variations
Many contracts specify that all variations must be in writing, signed by both parties. In Rock Advertising v MWB (2018), the Supreme Court ruled that such clauses will usually be sufficient to prevent oral variations being regarded as valid – so if you don't comply with the formalities specified in the contract, you run the risk of the other side not being bound by the variation.
As the following case demonstrates, there are also sound practical reasons for adopting a reasonable degree of formality when dealing with variations: