Short-form agreements: tips and traps
A. WilliamsDMAW Lawyers.
The APPEA Journal 52(2) 653-653 https://doi.org/10.1071/AJ11067
Published: 2012
Abstract
It is a common practice in the oil and gas industry for arrangements to be made by letters of intent, heads of agreement, memoranda of understanding or other short form documents; however, these less formal types of documents can suffer from inherent weaknesses that may render them invalid or difficult to enforce. Are you at risk that your pro-forma short-form agreement could turn out to be unenforceable in whole or in part?
This extended abstract provides tips on how to minimise the risk that a short-form agreement will not stand up to scrutiny; it also identifies traps to avoid. Scenarios where an agreement may not constitute an agreement and the types of clauses that may be found to be invalid or otherwise difficult to enforce are also considered.
Alison Williams is a senior associate in the business transactions and advice team at DMAW Lawyers. She particularly focuses on property, energy and resources, outsourcing, and general contract law. Her experience at DMAW Lawyers includes advising clients of all sizes. She has managed and conducted various property and other commercial matters for a cross section of business and industry, both locally and nationally. |
References
Masters v Cameron (1954) 91 CLR 353.See Rossiter v Miller (1878) 3 App Cas 1124, for example, category one agreement.
See Niesmann v Collingridge (1921) 29 CLR 177; Moffatt Property Development Group Pty Ltd v Hebron Park Pty Ltd [2009] QCA 60, for example, category two agreements.
See Uranium Equities Ltd v Fewster [20080 WASCA 33, for example, category THREE agreement.
Baulkham Hills Private Hospital Pty Ltd v G R Securities Pty Ltd (1986) 40 NSWLR 622.
