The term ‘battle of the forms’ refers to a situation that arises when parties exchange communications with a view to entering a contract, and each party attempts to incorporate its own standard terms into the contract.
The typical situation arises when one party makes an offer that incorporates its standard terms, and the other party purports to accept that offer with a document that incorporates its own conflicting standard terms.
The question then arises as to which standard terms will prevail in the battle of the forms. The answer often lies in which party ‘fired the last shot’, so to speak.
Each party would prefer that their standard terms should always apply, but the battle of the forms has the potential for uncertainty and future disagreement and should therefore be avoided if possible.
Avoiding a battle – always fire the last shot!
Although often effective, this strategy is not without risk because it is possible that a party may inadvertently overlook this step. For example, if a party takes any action that is consistent with fulfilling the contract when the other party fired the last shot, then it is that other party’s standard terms that will apply.
Agree on an overriding set of standard terms that will always apply to contractual dealings between the parties by reaching this agreement, such standard terms will generally override any other terms that a party may attempt to introduce at a later stage in the contractual relationship.
This agreement could be reached by the parties simply signing the relevant agreed terms in acknowledgment that they will always apply. Alternatively, the parties could enter what is sometimes called a framework agreement – essentially an overarching contract entered by the parties which contains all of the standard contractual terms, but which provides that the details of any individual supply will be set out in a separate document, such as a purchase or work order.
This approach was demonstrated in the case of TRW Ltd –v– Panasonic Industry Europe GmbH & Anor. In this case, the parties had signed an agreement at a much earlier stage in their contractual relationship and this was adjudicated by the Court of Appeal to override inconsistent terms which TRW Ltd later sought to reply upon. This decision is important because it evidences that the established battle of the forms principle can be overridden by careful contractual drafting evidencing that the parties had pre- agreed an alternative position.
The Corporate and Commercial team at Wilson Browne Solicitors is ideally placed to advise on all aspects of drafting and negotiating commercial contracts.
Duncan Crowther
Partner, Corporate & Commercial Team Wilson Browne Solicitors
For a confidential and no obligation initial discussion contacts the team on 0800 088 6004. Find out more at www.wilsonbrowne.co.uk
