Cross Indemnification Agreement

(d) Article 20 was not a single-use exclusion clause in which a party, in a stronger negotiating position, only wanted to exclude liability for its own offence. In this case, the parties were also economically strong. This special clause was a “Knock for Knock” compensation (also known as cross-compensation or mutual compensation). This meant that the loss would remain where it is contractually, regardless of the fault. This was a reciprocal “damage of attitude” clause. A mutual compensation clause (also known as “cross-compensation” or “knock-for-knock”) is a clause in which each party declares itself prepared to compensate the other party for certain losses for infringement. This means that the loss or damage is where it falls, no matter who is responsible. They appear in many oil and gas contracts. At first glance, the reciprocal nature of these compensations appears to be fair and could make it more difficult to resist in contract negotiations. In reality, it is worth asking whether you really have the same need as the party with which you are negotiating.

Are the cost of the service and the value of the contract the same for each party? Is the risk of rupture by the other party low, medium or high? Would the effects of this risk be minimal or significant for your business? Below is an article about a recent decision on the applicability of a cross-compensation clause. There are lessons for companies when entering into new contracts, business lawyers and litigs. (ii) to the extent that this is not covered in i), loss or deferral of production, loss of product, loss of use (including, but not limited, loss of use or costs of use of in-kind services, materials and services, including, but not limited, to those provided by contractors or subcontractors of each step or by third parties), loss of activity and interruption of service… [etc] Thanks to my colleague David Crone, who supported me in this article. Transocean Drilling UK Ltd/Providence Resources plc [2016] EWCA Civ 372 (a) commercial parties are free to award contracts on the basis that losses must be borne in some way. The starting point was the pure language of Article 20, because the parties had chosen that language to express their intentions. That was clear. Operating loss naturally relates to the loss of the ability to use a type of property or equipment that is owned or controlled by the contractor or business, but the parties had made it clear that they intended to expand their scope.

Twice in the same section, the parties used the words “unrestricted” to emphasize their views. The natural meaning was to exclude liability for the diespread costs that the tenant wished to recover. The contract was based on the industry LOGIC form, which the parties had adapted. Under clauses 18 and 20, each party contractually obliged to hold the other party unscathed from its own consecutive damages. This should be supported by insurance. The appeal process dealt with the question of whether the spread costs were consecutive damages. If this was the case, the tenant could not retrieve them from the landlord. In negotiating a new contract, it is not just a question of determining the price to be paid, what services are needed and when, resources, governance, etc. On the one side, it is a matter of apportioning risk in a way that is economically acceptable to both parties. The owner`s appeal was allowed for several reasons: the owner of an oil drilling facility (Transocean Drilling UK Limited) appealed part of a trial judgment in which it was found that the tenant (Providence Resources Plc) had the right to recover the consequent damage for the 27-day delay caused by the owner`s failure to ensure that the drilling rig was in good condition. The Tenant had attempted to recover the wasted costs for the third-party equipment and services he had paid for, known as “spread costs.” For example, well and cement testing, mud engineers and

Comments are closed.