The High Court dismissed Southwark’s claim. The framework agreement and the order had to be read together, so the reference to the Orchard software being of satisfactory quality had to be read in conjunction with the warranty in the order. The software conformed to the standard set out in the order. The judge said that satisfactory quality should be interpreted in that light rather than given the meaning under the Sale of Goods Act. It was clear from the wording in the contract that no statutory terms (including fitness for purpose or satisfactory quality) would be implied. The judge added that, in any event, the Sale of Goods Act would not apply in this case because there was no sale of any goods, as the contract made clear that there was no transfer of property in the software as the software was licensed rather than sold and on termination of the agreement all copies had to be returned or destroyed.

The Court of Appeal ruled as follows:

¨          The entire agreement clause excluded collateral warranties, but it did not exclude any liability for misrepresentations. The clause was interpreted narrowly so as only to reference terms, or even “representations” that would have become part of the contract but for the entire agreement clause. It did not stop a party from arguing that it had been induced into entering into the subsequent contract by a misrepresentation. The words “representations” and “supersede” were interpreted as talking about the terms of the contract itself rather than an inducement to enter the contract. Exclusion of liability for misrepresentation had to be clearly stated. Usual ways to do this would be to state that there had been no representations or that there had been no reliance on any representations in entering into the contract.

¨          The entire agreement clause did not stop terms from being implied into the contract to give it business efficacy.

¨          Having an entire agreement clause was reasonable and should not be struck out under the Unfair Contract Terms Act.

The High Court ruled that all the losses were direct losses. The supplier was therefore liable for all the damages claimed.

There is nothing startling about the result. What is surprising is that many suppliers are still under a misapprehension about how much they are covered by a crucial clause which seeks to limit their exposure for something going wrong. A lot of businesses think that economic losses are indirect and they are therefore not liable for them. This is wrong. Physical damage or economic loss (such as loss of profits, loss of revenue, loss of reputation, etc) can be either direct or indirect. It depends on the circumstances according to an interpretation based on a legal case from 150 years ago.

Liability clauses go to the heart of why businesses have contracts – in order to give certainty. However, many people are trading under a misunderstanding of the level of the risk that they have accepted.

Under UCTA, any terms restricting a seller’s liability for breach of contract, where the buyer is either a consumer or deals on the seller’s standard terms and conditions, must comply with a reasonableness test. In the initial ruling, the High Court had issued summary judgment in favour of the seller on the grounds that deciding whether the clauses were reasonable or not did not require a full trial.

The Court of Appeal agreed with the High Court’s ruling, pointing out that both of these BIFA clauses had been ruled to be reasonable in previous cases in the Court of Appeal. Whilst reasonableness claims under UCTA are considered by the courts on a case-by-case basis, the ruling suggests that any attempt to claim that these BIFA clauses are not reasonable in future will require unusual circumstances to be present, the lack of which will mean the same conclusion – the clauses are reasonable. In respect of the set-off clause in question, the Court of Appeal said that the exclusion of the right to set-off did not stop the buyer from refusing to pay any incorrectly charged sums as the exclusion only stopped setting off against sums due. The Court also said that the wording of the nine month limitation clause stopped the bringing of cases whether the cause of action had been known or not before expiry of that period.

It is also worth noting that the Court of Appeal commented that although the relative bargaining power is one of the criteria under UCTA for deciding reasonableness, the relative size of the parties was not likely to be important in deciding whether the clauses were reasonable if a small but commercially experienced buyer had a number of competing suppliers to choose from. That was the case here.

Paul Gershlick, a Partner at Matthew Arnold & Baldwin LLP and editor of Upload-IT, comments: ‘This case shows the scale of the damages that can be incurred if something goes wrong, which frequently does happen with IT projects. That is why it is important for a supplier to have a good contract in place at the outset so as to be protected against a catastrophic event that could cause disproportionate losses. In most cases, it is possible to cap liability, although the clause needs to be well-drafted to comply with the law. If the clause does not work legally, courts often refuse to uphold them.‘

The High Court said that the warranty did not apply because no operating documents had been provided by the time of the contract. There was therefore a disconnect between what Red Sky provided in its contracts and its actual processes. Instead of the contractual warranty, implied warranties applied based on the Sale of Goods Act and Supply of Goods and Services Act (notwithstanding that the contract terms had purported to exclude those terms) as no other reasonable warranty applied. The software was not of satisfactory quality or fit for its purpose. In addition, the exclusions and proposed cap on liability did not apply because, in deciding upon reasonableness, the judge took account of the fact that the parties were not of equal bargaining power, the standard terms had sought to exclude the statutory implied terms without providing reasonable replacements, and Kingsway did not know of the existence of the exclusions and limitations on liability. The judge sided with the customer to a large part based on its inability to satisfy itself with the system unless there were clear demonstrations or operating documents.

The High Court ruled that the total liability in contract included liability for contractual interest. However, any interest applied by statute was a discrete statutory liability arising from the exercise of the court’s discretion and was therefore not covered by the contractual cap on liability.

The High Court also ruled on other matters that emphasised the need to draft exclusions or limits on liability absolutely clearly beyond doubt. Failure to do so could result in the liability clause being interpreted against the person looking to rely on it.

One clause said: ‘Neither party shall be liable to the other for any indirect or consequential loss (including but not limited to loss of goodwill, loss business[…]) arising out of or in connection with this Agreement.’ Endsleigh argued that the specific types of losses in brackets could apply to direct or indirect losses, but the court rightly disagreed. The phrase ‘including but not limited to’ gave a clear indication that those losses were a type of indirect or consequential loss.

More surprising, perhaps, was the court’s interpretation of the following clause: ‘Endsleigh will not be liable to Markerstudy for any indirect or consequential loss or loss of profit or loss of business arising out of…’ The court ruled that only indirect loss of profit or business was covered by the exclusion. Endsleigh argued that the specified types of loss were free-standing from the phrase ‘any indirect or consequential loss’ and could therefore be direct or indirect loss of profit or loss of business, but the court rejected that argument too.

I would say that some of the court’s findings here are surprising. However, what is not surprising is that if someone wants to exclude or limit its liability, the clause has to be drafted very clearly – more so, perhaps, than many people realise. Failure to do this could result in not having liability limited or excluded in the way intended. Since the liability clause nearly always crop up in the event of a dispute, it is arguably the most important clause in the contract, but the one drafted incorrectly most often.