We have assumed that this query relates to an 'old tenancy' (ie pre-1 January 1996) on the basis of the reference to the tenant remaining liable under privity of contract. At common law, the original tenant remains liable under an 'old tenancy' for the tenant covenants throughout the term of the lease, even if it has assigned its interest (privity of contract) (Baynton v Morgan and Warnford Investments Ltd v Duckworth). A landlord may recover 'fixed charges' from a former tenant or its guarantor

With the exception of certain types of contract specified by law, there is no requirement in English law for contracts to be in writing or signed. It follows that the omission of a signature will necessitate an analysis of whether, and at what point, the requirements for the formation of a binding agreement were met. Formation of contracts The basic requirements for the formation of a binding contract are: • offer • acceptance • consideration • intention to create legal relations Any assessment of these requirements is objective. For more, see the following Practice Notes: • Forming enforceable contracts—offer • Forming

If a contracting authority’s standard form contracts do not already contain provisions which allow for termination in the circumstances specified in regulation 73 of the Public Contracts Regulations 2015 (PCR 2015), SI 2015/102 (PCR 2015, SI 2015/102, reg 73), then they should be changed. PCR 2015, SI 2015/102, reg 73 requires that contracting authorities are able to terminate contracts where: • the contract has been subject to substantial modification • where the contractor was, at the time of the contract award, subject to grounds

Unfortunately, we are unable to answer this query as it would require us to provide legal advice in relation to the scenario. However, we refer you to the below that may assist with your research. In public procurement procedures, the subject matter of a public contract is defined by reference to technical specifications. The contract award criteria, employed when evaluating tenders, must relate to the subject matter. There is ample scope under the procurement rules to specify requirements in output and/or outcome terms, which is widely regarded as good practice particularly when drafting contracts for the provision

Overview This Practice Note is part of our LLB Contract Law series written specifically for law students. It provides a comprehensive overview of remedies for breach of contract, focusing primarily on damages as the central common law remedy. It begins by considering remedies within the broader structure of contract law, explaining when termination is available – particularly through the breach of conditions and innominate (or ‘intermediate’) terms. It then establishes the foundational expectation principle from Robinson v Harman (1848) 1 Exch 850, emphasising that damages aim to place the claimant in the position they would have occupied had the contract been properly performed.  The Practice Note then develops the key limiting doctrines governing damages: causation, remoteness, and mitigation. It analyses leading authorities on mitigation, explaining how these doctrines restrict recovery even where breach is established. It also examines the different measures of damages (expectation, reliance, and, exceptionally, restitutionary awards) before exploring issues of quantification such as the distinction between ‘difference in value’ and ‘cost of cure’ in Ruxley Electronics v Forsyth [1996] AC 344.  Finally, the Practice Note addresses non-pecuniary loss and the modern law on liquidated damages and penalty clauses. It concludes with comparative perspectives,

It is important for both employers and contractors to know how to deal with loss and expense claims and to be aware of the practical steps to take—this is especially true in times of economic downturn, when construction activity is reduced and margins are tight, when it is generally accepted that the number of loss and expense claims increase. All the standard forms of construction contract provide a mechanism through which a contractor can claim monies additional to the contract sum. These monies typically compensate the contractor for the effects of changes and other events for which it is not responsible. Each contract contains a procedure which needs to be followed if a claim is to be successful. Unfortunately disputes often arise because contractors fail to read the contract properly and follow the correct procedure. The following measures can, if properly applied, assist both contractors and employers in avoiding prolonged and disputed final account settlements. For more information on the nature of loss and expense claims and the provisions in the standard form contracts please

[Enter name and address of employee] [Enter date] Dear [enter name] Termination of employment by payment in lieu of notice in instalments [Further to our conversation earlier today, I OR I] write to notify you that [enter name of Employer] has decided to exercise its right (under clauses [enter clause number(s)] of your [service agreement OR contract of employment] dated [enter date] (referred to in this letter as the [‘Service Agreement’ OR ‘Contract’]) to terminate your employment with immediate effect by giving you this written notification and making a payment in lieu of notice in instalments (the overall total of all such instalments is referred to in this letter as the ‘Payment’).[ This letter also refers to various other terms as defined in the [Service Agreement OR Contract].] The Payment is paid in lieu of your entitlement to notice under the [Service Agreement OR Contract], namely for [your notice period of [enter number] months OR the balance of your notice period, namely [enter date] to [enter date] OR the remainder

A price variation clause in a contract is often included where the parties wish to cover inflation risk in respect of a price contained within the contract. Such clauses are also commonly used in cases where there are periodical payments such as financial remedy orders. A price variation clause will consist of the base price for the goods or services covered by the contract, the index to which the variation is linked, and an applicable date or period against which the index is applied to the base price. An index measures changes in average price levels and is therefore useful as a tool to keep the price paid under the contract at the same level relative to inflation. Most indices utilise a sample study of a list of typical items purchased by households, with weighting applied to reflect the importance of the type of good. It is a matter of commercial negotiation which index is applied to a price variation clause. Inflation is measured by the Office for

SIAC ARBITRATION NO.[ ] OF 202[ ] IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION BETWEEN: Parties 1 WEIPA RESOURCES LIMITED Claimant AND 2 SELANGOR RESOURCES SDN BHD Respondent ARCHIVED: This Precedent has been archived and is no longer maintained. 1 The Claimant, Weipa Resources Limited (Claimant) is a company incorporated in the British Virgin Islands, with its registered address at P.O. Box 1234, Charlotte Street, Tortola, British Virgin Islands. 2 The Respondent, Selangor Resources Sdn Bhd (Respondent) is a company incorporated in Malaysia, with its registered address at #20-02, 500 Federal Plaza, Petaling Jaya, Selangor. 3 By an agreement in writing entered into on or around 15 August 2014 between the Respondent and the Claimant (the Contract), the Claimant agreed to purchase and the Respondent agreed to sell 20,000 metric tonnes (plus or minus 5% at the Claimant’s option) of delayed coking petroleum sponge coke grade low sulphur (the Product). The governing law of the Contract is the law of [insert applicable law]. 4 A copy of the Contract is attached hereto, at Annex SOC-1. 5 Pursuant to clause 3.2 of the Contract, the Product was to be delivered by the Respondent on an

SIAC ARBITRATION NO.[INSERT NUMBER] OF 202[INSERT NUMBER] IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION BETWEEN: Parties 1 SOLENTRA RENEWABLES PTE LTD Claimant AND 2 MARITON ENGINEERING CO LTD Respondent 1 The Claimant, Solentra Pte Ltd (Claimant) is a company incorporated in the British Virgin Islands, with its registered address at P.O. Box 1234, Charlotte Street, Tortola, British Virgin Islands. The Respondent, Mariton Engineering Co Ltd (Respondent) is a company incorporated in Malaysia, with its registered address at #20-02, 500 Federal Plaza, Petaling Jaya, Selangor. 2 By an agreement in writing entered into on or around 15 August 2022 between the Respondent and the Claimant (the Contract), the Claimant agreed to purchase and the Respondent agreed to sell 20,000 metric tonnes (plus or minus 5% at the Claimant’s option) of delayed coking petroleum sponge coke grade low sulphur (the Product). The governing law of the Contract is the law of [insert applicable law]. 3 A copy of the Contract is attached hereto, at Annex SOC-1. 4 Pursuant to clause 3.2 of the Contract, the Product was to be delivered by the Respondent on an FOB basis at Port of Mombasa, Kenya (Port

Employment analysis: Whether a contract is a ‘worker’s contract’ is a matter of statutory interpretation, not contractual interpretation. That involves taking a purposive approach which, in the employment context, is to protect those who are vulnerable as a result of their subordination to, and dependence upon, another person in relation to their work. In the case of Uber, the employment tribunal’s findings on the relative degree of control exercised by Uber and drivers respectively over the service provided to passengers justified its conclusion that the drivers were workers, according to the Supreme Court.

Commercial analysis: This decision is a reminder of the ‘strict constraints’ on the court’s power to imply a particular term or terms into a contract, and the court’s aversion to applying any element of hindsight in interpreting the parties’ original bargain. The court confirmed the trial judge’s finding that a contract ‘worked’ notwithstanding that one party did not receive a benefit that both parties anticipated that it would receive at the time of contracting. Written by Jonathan Kelly and Victoria Rowley, at Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer LLP.