RTI Ltd -v- MUR Shipping BV [2024]
UKSC 18
The Supreme Court has unanimously ruled that a party can rely on
a force majeure (FM) clause only if it shows that reasonable steps
have been taken to avoid the effect of the "force majeure
event" (FME) as defined in the clause.
However, those reasonable steps do not go as far as obliging a
party to accept a form of performance that is different to what the
parties have agreed in their contract.
The judgment is important in highlighting the English
courts' emphasis on the need for certainty in commercial
contracts, particularly in the context of sanctions.
The background facts
RTI and MUR entered into a contract of affreightment on amended
Gencon terms (the COA), which provided for payment of freight to
MUR in US dollars. Clause 36 of the COA allowed a party to suspend
performance of its contractual obligations on the occurrence of a
FME. Pursuant to clause 36.3, an event or state of affairs could be
classified
