Paul Griffiths Partner
Court of Appeal confirms seller’s obligation to return advance payment following non-delivery of goods
Nord Naphtha Ltd v. New Stream Trading AG  EWCA Civ 1829
The Court of Appeal has recently upheld a Commercial Court decision that found the buyer of diesel under a sale contract was entitled to the return of an advance payment following non-delivery of the diesel due to a force majeure event at the refinery. Both the lower and appeal courts dismissed an argument that the buyer’s only recourse was under a comfort letter issued by the refinery which had, in the meantime, gone into liquidation.
The background facts
Nord Naphtha Limited and New Stream Trading AG entered into a contract dated 21 February 2019 (“Contract”) for the purchase of 30,000mts of ultra-low sulphur diesel (“Product”). The Contract provided that Nord Naphtha would make an advance payment to Nord Stream representing 90% of the value of the Product, approximately. US$ 16 million (“Advance Payment”). The Advance Payment was paid the next day, on 22 February 2019.
The intention was for New Stream to source the Product from a Refinery, for which New Stream described themselves as the Refinery’s marketing and sales agent. The Refinery issued a comfort letter dated 21 February 2019 to Nord Naphtha referring to the Contract and offering guarantees and confirmations (“Comfort Letter”).
On 17 April 2019, New Stream notified Nord Naphtha of a force majeure event under the Contract, stating that delivery was delayed due to operational and production issues at the Refinery. It was envisaged that delivery would still take place but in a later delivery window at the end of April or beyond. The Comfort Letter was extended to the middle of May 2019.
The Product was not delivered within the later delivery window because the Refinery went into liquidation and, by letter dated 30 June 2020, Nord Naphtha terminated the Contract and sought repayment of the Advance Payment.
Whilst it was common ground that the termination was valid, New Stream denied that it was under any contractual obligation to repay the Advance Payment and denied any unjust enrichment on its part in circumstances where: (i) the Advance Payment had been paid to the Refinery, less a commission; and (ii) liability to repay rested with the Refinery under the terms of the Comfort Letter.
The Commercial Court decision
At first instance, Nord Naphtha obtained summary judgment against New Stream.
The Court’s starting point in analysing the Contract was that it would be a very surprising result if a buyer had no ability to reclaim its prepayment from a seller in any circumstances. Against that background, the Court read an express obligation into one of the contractual clauses to repay the Advance Payment and if that analysis was wrong, the Court considered that a repayment obligation was so obvious that it fulfilled the requirements for an implied term.
Nord Stream appealed.
The Court of Appeal decision
Nord Stream argued that the Commercial Court had adopted a “back to front” approach to construction of the Contract, starting from the premise that it would be surprising if the Contract did not contain a right to the return of the Advance Payment in a force majeure situation and using that premise to construe the Contract as containing such a term, expressly or impliedly. Nord Stream argued that the starting point should be a textual analysis of the contractual language and that the reason that the Contract did not contain an express right of return of the Advance Payment was because the Comfort Letter issued by the Refinery catered for that eventuality and put the obligation on the Refinery if delivery failed because of force majeure.
Nord Naphtha countered that the judge’s approach was not “back to front” and was consistent with previous English cases on construction of commercial contracts. Further, the Comfort Letter provided no comfort at all, having been revocable at will by the Refinery in the event of force majeure and having expired in the middle of May 2019, prior to the termination of the Contract.
Where diesel was being traded, the Court was entitled to assume that the parties had a level of commercial sophistication matching experienced traders operating in that market. Here, the Court of Appeal found that the Contract was a straightforward bargain for the sale of diesel, albeit with clumsy drafting in places. Looking at the language of the Contract, the Court of Appeal found that the purpose of the force majeure clause as a whole was to return the parties to their original, pre-contractual positions and that where that was the purpose of the clause, Nord Naphtha would expect to have the right to claim repayment of monies paid by way of an advance.
Furthermore, from a commercial perspective it would be surprising in a contract for the sale of goods not to find a provision requiring repayment of money paid in advance in the event that delivery of the goods did not take place. The Comfort Letter offered no real comfort in the event of a failure in delivery due to force majeure and the Court of Appeal concluded, therefore, that no reasonable buyer would put the Advance Payment at risk in that way.
The Court of Appeal concluded that the disputed contractual clause expressly provided Nord Naphtha with a right of repayment of the Advance Payment in the event of non-delivery for force majeure reasons. There was, therefore, no need to imply such a term.
Nord Stream’s appeal was, therefore, dismissed.
This dispute highlights the importance of stating expressly and clearly in both sale of goods and provision of services contracts whether and when advance payments are repayable. The contractual provisions should insofar as possible cater for all eventualities, including when any monies advanced under the contract are deemed earned and are consequently non-refundable. It is unwise to rely on implied terms to fill the gaps.
The ineffectiveness of the Comfort Letter, particularly where the Refinery became insolvent, is also worth noting.
Related news & insights
News / Court finds extra-contractual counterclaims fell within scope of arbitration agreement
02-08-2022 / Maritime
Sea Master Special Maritime Enterprise & another v. Arab Bank (Switzerland) Ltd (Sea Master)  EWHC 1953 (Comm) This bill of lading dispute raised issues as to whether the Bank financing the purchase of a cargo, and the holder of a switch bill of lading for the cargo, was a party to the arbitration agreement incorporated into the switch bill and, if so, whether certain counterclaims brought by the Owners came within the scope of that arbitration agreement. The Court agreed with the tribunal’s findings that, once the Court had decided that the Bank was a party to the arbitration agreement, then the counterclaims for reasonable remuneration and quantum meruit came within the ambit of the arbitration agreement, being claims “arising out of or in connection” with the bill of lading contract.
News / Party offered reasonably satisfactory security following collision obliged to accept it
20-07-2022 / Maritime
MV Pacific Pearl Co Ltd v. Osios David Shipping Inc (Panamax Alexander)  EWCA Civ 798 The Court of Appeal has confirmed that a party to ASG 2, the standard form Collision Jurisdiction Agreement, is obliged to accept reasonable security once it is offered and cannot choose to refuse that security and seek alternative or better security by arresting a ship. In such circumstances, there is no right to an arrest or any justification for it.
News / Rosita Lau, MH calls for China businesses to opt for Hong Kong arbitration in their contracts
15-07-2022 / Maritime
In an interview published this morning (14 July) in The Hong Kong Maritime Hub, Ince Partner Rosita Lau, MH calls for Chinese businesses to opt for Hong Kong arbitration in their contracts, initiative that requires attention of officials from the highest level.
News / Court finds Covid-19 restrictions did not constitute force majeure under MOA
13-07-2022 / Maritime
NKD Maritime Limited v. Bart Maritime (No 2) Inc (Shagang Giant)  EWHC 1615 (Comm) The Court has construed a force majeure clause and considered whether Buyers validly terminated a contract for the sale of a vessel on the basis that Covid-19 lockdown restrictions prevented Sellers from transferring title in the Vessel.
News / Shipping gets smart
20-06-2022 / Maritime
On 25 November 2021, the UK Law Commission published its Advice to the UK Government on how English law currently applies to smart legal contracts. Subsequently, on 16 March 2022, the Law Commission published its report on electronic trade documents, together with draft legislation that would implement its recommendations to allow for the legal recognition of trade documents such as bills of lading and bills of exchange in electronic form.
News / Carrier Under CMR Successful in Limiting Liability for Consignee’s Losses
14-06-2022 / Maritime
Paul Knapfield v. C.A.R.S. Ltd & others  EWHC 1437 (Comm) Disputes under the Carriage of Goods by Road Act 1965, which incorporates the Convention on the Contract for the International Carriage of Goods by Road 1956 (CMR), do not come up very often. This decision is, therefore, useful in illustrating when and how the CMR applies. In this case, the Court found that the CMR limit of liability applied to the claimant’s claim, with the result that his losses far exceeded the amount he could ultimately recover from the carrier.