The Devil Is In Paragraph 3.2.2.2 (ii)

The importance of consistency throughout a contract

What if the main body of a contract appears to say one thing, but the detailed wording of a technical schedule appears to be at odds with that? You might have thought that the main body of the contract would take precedence – but a recent Supreme Court ruling suggests otherwise. And in terms of how to respond, the case is likely to create difficulties for both suppliers and customers.

Turbine trouble

MT Hojgaard v E.ON Climate & Renewables (2017) concerned a dispute over the failure of offshore wind turbines installed by MT Hojgaard. The purchaser, E.ON, argued that the foundations of the turbines were effectively subject to a 20 year warranty set out in paragraph 3.2.2.2 (ii) of the Technical Requirements of the project (which formed part of the agreement).