TRW v Panasonic Industry Europe [2021]
Share
TRW Ltd v Panasonic Industry Europe GmbH [2021] EWCA Civ 1558 addressed a critical aspect of the battle of forms in contract law, emphasising the importance of clear and unambiguous drafting in standard form contracts to avoid uncertainties in trading relationships.
The case involved Panasonic supplying resistors to TRW for use in vehicle parts. Panasonic's standard practice required TRW to sign a 'customer file' document, acknowledging Panasonic's general conditions. These conditions stated that they would apply exclusively unless TRW's conditions were expressly confirmed in writing. The general conditions also specified Hamburg (Germany) courts as having exclusive jurisdiction.
TRW, in its purchase orders, insisted on the goods being delivered in accordance with TRW’s conditions of purchase, which designated English courts as having jurisdiction. The High Court, faced with the question of whose standard terms applied, ruled in favour of Panasonic.
The court found that by signing the customer file document, TRW acknowledged Panasonic's general conditions, placing an obligation on them, if they chose to enter into a supply contract, to do so on Panasonic's terms unless otherwise agreed. The court rejected TRW's argument that the customer file document had no contractual effect, emphasising that consideration had been given.
The Court of Appeal upheld the decision, emphasising that the wording of Panasonic's general conditions was clear and unambiguous, protecting them from the last shot doctrine. The court also highlighted the importance of early and decisive action in such battles of forms, suggesting that parties should agree on standard terms before delving into specific orders and should draft ongoing obligations to trade on agreed terms clearly.
The key takeaways from this case include the significance of acting early, reaching an agreement on standard terms upfront, and ensuring that ongoing obligations are drafted with clarity. The case underscores the advantage of taking decisive action in battles of forms to avoid uncertainties and disputes in contractual relationships. Additionally, the judgment emphasises that obtaining a signature on documents can contribute to the enforceability of contractual terms.
The case involved Panasonic supplying resistors to TRW for use in vehicle parts. Panasonic's standard practice required TRW to sign a 'customer file' document, acknowledging Panasonic's general conditions. These conditions stated that they would apply exclusively unless TRW's conditions were expressly confirmed in writing. The general conditions also specified Hamburg (Germany) courts as having exclusive jurisdiction.
TRW, in its purchase orders, insisted on the goods being delivered in accordance with TRW’s conditions of purchase, which designated English courts as having jurisdiction. The High Court, faced with the question of whose standard terms applied, ruled in favour of Panasonic.
The court found that by signing the customer file document, TRW acknowledged Panasonic's general conditions, placing an obligation on them, if they chose to enter into a supply contract, to do so on Panasonic's terms unless otherwise agreed. The court rejected TRW's argument that the customer file document had no contractual effect, emphasising that consideration had been given.
The Court of Appeal upheld the decision, emphasising that the wording of Panasonic's general conditions was clear and unambiguous, protecting them from the last shot doctrine. The court also highlighted the importance of early and decisive action in such battles of forms, suggesting that parties should agree on standard terms before delving into specific orders and should draft ongoing obligations to trade on agreed terms clearly.
The key takeaways from this case include the significance of acting early, reaching an agreement on standard terms upfront, and ensuring that ongoing obligations are drafted with clarity. The case underscores the advantage of taking decisive action in battles of forms to avoid uncertainties and disputes in contractual relationships. Additionally, the judgment emphasises that obtaining a signature on documents can contribute to the enforceability of contractual terms.
