On-Demand Bonds, Injunctions and FIDIC Contracts

Bonds and guarantees will usually be required in any major construction project and they are a requirement within FIDIC standard forms.  An on-demand bond is a security that unconditionally requires a Bank or other surety to pay to the beneficiary a sum of money once a demand has been made and, on occasion, on the presentation of certain documents.  This can be contrasted with a normal guarantee which will usually require the beneficiary to prove a liability against the obligor/debtor who has the benefit of the guarantee.  These normal types of guarantees are commonly referred to as “see to it” guarantees.[1]

By |24/11/2021|Bonds, Knowledge Hub|Comments Off on On-Demand Bonds, Injunctions and FIDIC Contracts

Pay attention Bond!

The recent English case Sumitomo Mitsui Banking Corporation Europe Limited v Euler Hermes Europe SA (NV) [2019] EWHC 2250 (Comm) highlights that where an on demand bond is assigned and a demand then made under that bond, the beneficiary will need to be sure not only that the demand is compliant with the terms of the bond but also that the assignment was effective in the first place.

By |10/03/2020|Bonds, English Law, featured, Knowledge Hub|Comments Off on Pay attention Bond!

Unjust Enrichment and Construction Contracts – A Cinderella Story?

Two decades ago, unjust enrichment was described as “the Cinderella of law, barely 10 years old but growing up rapidly. Until recently unrecognised and overshadowed by the ugly sisters, Contract and Tort, Cinderella’s day has arrived.” In England a claim for unjust enrichment was initially referred to as a claim in ‘quasi contract’. This language has now been abandoned and unjust enrichment has a strong foothold in the landscape of commercial law and its role and limits are becoming more clearly defined. Despite this, it is only infrequently pleaded in construction cases and when argued it is often set out in broad terms where the facts do not support such a claim. However, this is cause of action that should not be overlooked by a contractor or employer – especially if they have claims that fall outside the four corners of their construction contract.

By |03/10/2016|Bonds, Dispute Boards, English Law, Knowledge Hub|Comments Off on Unjust Enrichment and Construction Contracts – A Cinderella Story?

Murphy’s Law

Earlier this year, the English High Court considered a heavily amended FIDIC Yellow Book 1999. Whilst the case is specific to the particular contractual amendments it is worth review. The case is J Murphy & Sons Ltd v Beckton Energy Ltd. It proceeded in court and on an expedited basis as a matter of some urgency because a bond was about to be called for non-payment of delay damages. The Contractor claimed the call would affect his commercial reputation, standing and creditworthiness, and may well need to be disclosed in future tenders. He had not paid the delay damages because there had been no agreement or determination of the entitlement to such by the Engineer under Sub-Clauses 2.5 and 3.5.

By |03/10/2016|Bonds, Delay, English Law, Knowledge Hub|Comments Off on Murphy’s Law
Go to Top