Share on LinkedInShare on LinkedIn

ARTICLE · 18 JULY 2024

The Gafta Default Clause

In Sharp Corp Ltd -v- Viterra BV [2024] UKSC 14, the Supreme Court clarified how damages are assessed under Gafta contracts in cases of default. Emphasizing the compensatory principle and mitigation, it determined that the "actual or estimated value" post-default should reflect the ex warehouse Mundra price, considering market conditions and contractual terms

United KingdomCorporate/Commercial Law

The Gafta default clause: a closer focus on mitigation

Sharp Corp Ltd -v- Viterra BV (formerly known as Glencore Agriculture BV) [2024] UKSC 14

In this case, the Supreme Court has decided the proper measure of damages under the Gafta default clause. Whilst the facts of the case as presented are a little unusual, the Supreme Court's conclusion provides guidance as to how damages are to be assessed generally in cases of default under standard Gafta contracts. The Court's focus is as much on the principle of mitigation as it is on the compensatory principle.

The background facts

In summary, the chronology is as follows:

January 2017 The parties concluded two contracts on C&FFO Mundra (India) terms. One contract for the sale of 20,000mt lentils and the other for 45,000mt yellow peas (the “Goods”).

We operate a free-to-view policy, asking only that you register in order to read all of our content. Please login or register to view the rest of this article.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

See more popular content from