Take Or Pay Agreement Significato

Dec 18th, 2020 | By | Category: Uncategorized

Outside the oil and gas context, contractual terms of “taking or paying” are often dismissed by the courts as unenforceable penalties. The courts consider them to be “liquidated compensation clauses,” which must be based on an appropriate reconciliation of the actual harm suffered by one party as a result of the other party`s infringement. “Take or pay” generally does not meet this standard. In short, it is a clause that excuses part of the performance where it has become too heavily difficult for it economically. In general, even if it is a requirement for the parties to renegotiate their agreement instead of simply leaving a page “out of the hook”. In addition to overheads, there are two other reasons why energy projects are intended for such fixed-price or paid contracts: one of the fundamental principles of the 2009/73/EC Directive[8] is the possibility of granting third parties access to the natural gas transmission network, i.e. that any supplier has the right to access it. In this context, exemptions from this rule may be requested when another natural gas company that already has access to the grid proves that it is experiencing economic and financial difficulties because of the take-or pay clause it has entered into. Take-or-pay clauses are common in long-term supply contracts in the energy sector, the most typical example being natural gas sales contracts between a supplier and its customers.

Under the take-or-pay clauses, the customer – a buyer from a supplier/seller – is required to either pay the price for certain quantities of natural gas and quantities accepted in advance, or to pay the corresponding price, whether he buys them or not. For its part, the seller undertakes to receive the amount of natural gas agreed in advance. The provision of section 24 is an imperative right given the appropriate purpose. Gas sales contracts should adopt the legal requirements for establishing obligations under the “Take-or Pay” clauses and establish specific conditions for the use of the receivables under this clause. In any event, these agreements and claims must not lead to a violation of the parameters of Article 24. The lex for a is often not the same as the law that governs the treaty. For example, a Chinese company could enter into a contract with an Australian company for the extraction of raw materials in Australia. The law chosen for the payment contract to be paid is an English right, but England would clearly not be a convenient place to hear quarrels. As a result, the parties choose Australia as a place for dispute resolution (or perhaps Singapore as the seat for arbitration). This means that Australian/Singaporean courts are invited to apply English law. This is quite common and the courts are used to doing so, but it is only an additional consideration to take into account (not least because “sophisticated” dishes get it more easily than others).

The law of the dispute settlement place will also have an impact on the procedure of any litigation procedure that may be relevant to the manner in which the use of experts and facts demonstrates various issues. Therefore, the original term and the purpose of the clause are the interests of both parties, i.e.:

Comments are closed.