Limitation of Liability Clause (FIDIC Yellow Book): 1999 vs 2017 Analysis

(FIDIC Yellow Book 1999: Clause 17.6 vs. FIDIC Yellow Book 2017: Clause 1.15)

---

Introduction

The Limitation of Liability clause is fundamental in allocating and capping financial risk between the Employer and the Contractor. It aims to provide commercial certainty by defining the extent of potential financial exposure each party faces under the contract, particularly concerning indirect losses and overall liability ceilings. We’ll look at Clause 17.6 from the 1999 edition and its evolution into Clause 1.15 in the 2017 edition, noting a significant shift towards greater mutuality in the later version.

---

1️⃣ Purpose of the Clauses

🤔 Why have a Limitation of Liability Clause at all?

Imagine a scenario where a relatively minor defect leads to a massive, unforeseen loss of profit for one party. Without a limitation clause, the potential financial exposure could be disproportionately huge compared to the contract value, potentially bankrupting the liable party. These clauses serve several key purposes:

1. Risk Capping: To set a maximum financial ceiling (often linked to the contract value) on the total liability of one party to the other for breaches of contract or other specified events, except for certain carved-out liabilities.
2. Exclusion of Indirect/Consequential Loss: To explicitly exclude liability for specific types of losses – typically those that are indirect, consequential, or relate to loss of profit, revenue, or production. This provides predictability and prevents claims for remote or speculative damages.
3. Commercial Certainty: To allow both parties to understand their maximum potential financial exposure under the contract, enabling them to manage risk, obtain appropriate insurance, and price the contract realistically.
4. Balancing Risk: While the 1999 edition primarily focused on limiting the Contractor’s liability to the Employer, the 2017 edition introduces a more balanced approach by also explicitly limiting the Employer’s liability to the Contractor for certain matters.

Historical Context & Key Updates (1999 to 2017):

The most significant evolution from Clause 17.6 (1999) to Clause 1.15 (2017) is the introduction of mutuality.

• 1999 Edition (Clause 17.6): Focused primarily on limiting the Contractor’s liability to the Employer, although the exclusion of indirect/consequential loss was mutual. There was no explicit overall cap on the Employer’s liability to the Contractor mentioned within this specific clause.
• 2017 Edition (Clause 1.15): Explicitly includes limitations on both the Contractor’s liability to the Employer and the Employer’s liability to the Contractor, each with its own set of exceptions. This reflects a move towards a more balanced risk allocation between the parties regarding overall financial exposure. The list of exceptions to the caps has also been updated to align with the renumbered clauses and refined indemnity structures of the 2017 edition. Additionally, “gross negligence” was added to the list of conducts that liability caps do not protect against.

---

2️⃣ Breakdown of the Clauses

A. FIDIC Yellow Book 1999: Clause 17.6 Limitation of Liability

(Verbatim text / Detailed Summary)

“Neither Party shall be liable to the other Party for loss of use of any Works, loss of profit, loss of any contract or for any indirect or consequential loss or damage which may be suffered by the other Party in connection with the Contract, other than under Sub-Clause 16.4 [Payment on Termination] and Sub-Clause 17.1 [Indemnities].

The total liability of the Contractor to the Employer, under or in connection with the Contract other than under Sub-Clause 4.19 [Electricity, Water and Gas], Sub-Clause 4.20 [Employer’s Equipment and Free-Issue Material], Sub-Clause 17.1 [Indemnities] and Sub-Clause 17.5 [Intellectual and Industrial Property Rights], shall not exceed the sum stated in the Particular Conditions or (if a sum is not so stated) the Accepted Contract Amount.

This Sub-Clause shall not limit liability in any case of fraud, deliberate default or reckless misconduct by the defaulting Party.”

Explanation:

• Mutual Exclusion: The first paragraph establishes a mutual exclusion – neither the Employer nor the Contractor can claim for loss of use, loss of profit, or indirect/consequential damages from the other party. There are only two exceptions listed: payments due upon termination (Clause 16.4) and liabilities covered by the specific indemnities in Clause 17.1.
• Contractor’s Liability Cap: The second paragraph sets a ceiling on the Contractor’s total liability to the Employer. This cap applies to all liabilities under the contract except for those arising from:
  • Costs related to utilities (Clause 4.19)
  • Liabilities related to Employer-provided equipment/materials (Clause 4.20)
  • The specific indemnities provided by the Contractor (Clause 17.1)
  • Liabilities concerning Intellectual Property Rights (Clause 17.5)
• The Cap Amount: The actual limit is either a specific sum mentioned in the Particular Conditions or, if no sum is stated, defaults to the Accepted Contract Amount.
• Misconduct Exclusion: The third paragraph makes it clear that these limitations do not protect a party guilty of fraud, deliberate default, or reckless misconduct.

B. FIDIC Yellow Book 2017: Clause 1.15 Limitation of Liability

(Verbatim text / Detailed Summary)

“Neither Party shall be liable to the other Party for loss of use of any Works, loss of profit, loss of any contract or for any indirect or consequential loss or damage which may be suffered by the other Party in connection with the Contract, other than under:(a) Sub-Clause 8.8 [Delay Damages];(b) sub-paragraph (c) of Sub-Clause 13.3.1 [Variation by Instruction];(c) Sub-Clause 15.7 [Payment after Termination for Employer’s Convenience];(d) Sub-Clause 16.4 [Payment after Termination by Contractor];(e) Sub-Clause 17.3 [Intellectual and Industrial Property Rights];(f) the first paragraph of Sub-Clause 17.4 [Indemnities by Contractor]; and(g) Sub-Clause 17.5 [Indemnities by Employer].

The total liability of the Contractor to the Employer under or in connection with the Contract, other than under:(i) Sub-Clause 2.6 [Employer-Supplied Materials and Employer’s Equipment];(ii) Sub-Clause 4.19 [Temporary Utilities];(iii) Sub-Clause 17.3 [Intellectual and Industrial Property Rights]; and(iv) the first paragraph of Sub-Clause 17.4 [Indemnities by Contractor],shall not exceed the sum stated in the Contract Data or (if a sum is not so stated) the Accepted Contract Amount.

The total liability of the Employer to the Contractor under or in connection with the Contract, other than under:(A) Sub-Clause 1.17 [Employer’s Liability to Contractor];(B) Sub-Clause 16.4 [Payment after Termination by Contractor]; and(C) Sub-Clause 17.5 [Indemnities by Employer],shall not exceed the sum stated in the Contract Data or (if a sum is not so stated) the sum calculated under sub-paragraph (i) of Sub-Clause 15.6 [Valuation after Termination for Employer’s Convenience].

This Sub-Clause shall not limit liability in any case of fraud, gross negligence, deliberate default or reckless misconduct by the defaulting Party.”

Explanation:

• Mutual Exclusion (Updated Exceptions): The first paragraph maintains the mutual exclusion for indirect/consequential loss but updates the list of exceptions to align with the 2017 structure. Notably, Delay Damages (Clause 8.8) and specific variation costs (Clause 13.3.1(c)) are now explicitly mentioned alongside termination payments and indemnities.
• Contractor’s Liability Cap (Updated Exceptions): The second paragraph retains the cap on the Contractor’s total liability to the Employer. The exceptions are slightly revised based on 2017 clause numbering and structure (e.g., Clause 2.6 replaces 4.20, the indemnity reference is more specific to 17.4(f)).
• Employer’s Liability Cap (NEW): The third paragraph introduces a significant change by setting a cap on the Employer’s total liability to the Contractor. This cap has its own specific exceptions: liabilities already covered in Clause 1.17 (a new clause consolidating certain Employer liabilities), termination payments (Clause 16.4), and the Employer’s specific indemnities (Clause 17.5). The default cap amount is linked to the valuation after termination for convenience (Clause 15.6(i)) if not stated in the Contract Data.
• The Cap Amounts: Similar to 1999, the caps are ideally stated in the Contract Data, otherwise defaults apply (Accepted Contract Amount for Contractor; Termination for Convenience valuation for Employer).
• Misconduct Exclusion (Enhanced): The final paragraph maintains the exclusion for misconduct but adds “gross negligence” to the list alongside fraud, deliberate default, and reckless misconduct.

---

3️⃣ Key Interpretations and Implications

Let’s chat about what this really means day-to-day:

• The Big Picture – Commercial Reality: These clauses are vital. They stop a potential dispute from escalating into financially crippling territory over indirect losses like lost future business, which can be hard to quantify and prove direct causation for. It makes the deal commercially viable.
• Indirect vs. Direct Loss: The distinction is crucial but can be tricky! Generally, direct loss flows naturally from the breach (e.g., cost to repair defective work). Indirect/consequential loss is a step removed (e.g., loss of profit because the defective plant couldn’t operate). Be aware: the exact legal definition can vary significantly between jurisdictions! 🌍
• The Caps are NOT Absolute: Look closely at the exceptions! Liabilities related to indemnities (often covering third-party claims like injury or property damage), intellectual property infringements, and specific costs like utilities or Employer-supplied items are outside the main cap. This means liability for these specific things could potentially exceed the overall contract value limit.
• Mutuality (The 2017 Game Changer): The explicit cap on the Employer’s liability in the 2017 edition is a big step towards balance. In 1999, while the Employer was protected from Contractor claims for consequential loss, their own total liability (beyond direct costs) wasn’t explicitly capped within this clause. Clause 1.15 (2017) provides more symmetry.
• Contract Data/Particular Conditions are Key: The default caps (Accepted Contract Amount for Contractor, Termination Valuation for Employer in 2017) might not always be appropriate. Parties must consider if specific monetary caps should be stated in the Contract Data (2017) or Particular Conditions (1999). Leaving it blank means accepting the default.
• Misconduct – No Shield: If a party acts fraudulently, deliberately defaults, is recklessly misconducting, or (in 2017) is grossly negligent, they can’t hide behind the liability caps. This ensures a basic level of accountability for bad behaviour.

---

4️⃣ Cross-Referencing with Other Clauses

These clauses don’t exist in a vacuum! They interact heavily with others:

• Indemnity Clauses:
  • 1999: Clause 17.1 (General Indemnities by Contractor) & Clause 17.5 (IPR Indemnity by Contractor). These are exceptions to the Contractor’s liability cap in Clause 17.6.
  • 2017: Clause 17.4 (Indemnities by Contractor) & Clause 17.5 (Indemnities by Employer) & Clause 17.3 (IPR). These are exceptions to the mutual exclusion of consequential loss in Clause 1.15. Furthermore, 17.4(f) (Contractor’s general indemnity) and 17.3 (IPR) are exceptions to the Contractor’s overall cap, while 17.5 (Employer’s indemnity) is an exception to the Employer’s overall cap. The interaction is more complex but more explicit.
• Termination Clauses:
  • 1999: Clause 16.4 (Payment on Termination by Contractor) is an exception to the mutual exclusion of consequential loss. Clause 15 (Termination by Employer) payments are subject to the overall cap unless related to excepted items.
  • 2017: Clause 15.7 (Payment after Termination for Employer’s Convenience) and Clause 16.4 (Payment after Termination by Contractor) are exceptions to the mutual exclusion of consequential loss. 16.4 is also an exception to the Employer’s overall cap.
• Specific Cost/Responsibility Clauses:
  • 1999: Clause 4.19 (Utilities) & Clause 4.20 (Employer’s Equipment) are exceptions to the Contractor’s overall liability cap.
  • 2017: Clause 2.6 (Employer-Supplied Materials/Equipment) & Clause 4.19 (Temporary Utilities) are exceptions to the Contractor’s overall liability cap.
• Delay Damages:
  • 1999: Not explicitly mentioned as an exception in Clause 17.6. Delay damages are generally considered direct losses and wouldn’t be excluded by the first paragraph, nor typically capped by the overall liability limit unless specific wording was added.
  • 2017: Clause 8.8 (Delay Damages) is now an explicit exception to the mutual exclusion of consequential loss in Clause 1.15, clarifying they are recoverable despite potentially impacting profit/use. They are subject to their own cap defined in the Contract Data (Clause 8.8 itself) and are implicitly subject to the overall Contractor liability cap unless specifically excluded via PCs.
• Variation Clause:
  • 2017: Clause 13.3.1(c) (costs related to Contractor’s proposals for Variations) is an exception to the mutual exclusion of consequential loss, allowing recovery of associated costs that might otherwise be deemed indirect.
• Definitions (Clause 1.1): Terms like “Accepted Contract Amount”, “Cost”, “Contract Data”, “Particular Conditions” are crucial for interpreting the caps and exceptions.

Understanding these links is vital. You can’t just read the Limitation of Liability clause in isolation; its real impact depends on how these other specified liabilities and payments are handled.

---

5️⃣ What If Scenarios?

Let’s play out a few scenarios:

• Scenario 1: The Contractor delivers Plant 6 months late due to their own poor planning. The Employer claims massive loss of profit for the 6 months the facility wasn’t operational.
  • Likely Outcome (Both Editions): The claim for loss of profit would likely be barred by the first paragraph (mutual exclusion of consequential loss). The Employer’s primary remedy would be Delay Damages as defined and capped in the Contract Data (Clause 8.7 in 1999, Clause 8.8 in 2017).
• Scenario 2: A defect in the Contractor’s design (not involving fraud etc.) causes a major failure after takeover, requiring extensive repairs and causing the Employer significant operational losses (loss of production).
  • Likely Outcome (Both Editions):
    • The cost of repairs would generally be recoverable under the defects liability provisions (Clause 11), subject potentially to the overall cap.
    • The loss of production (operational losses) would likely be considered consequential loss and barred by the first paragraph of Clause 17.6 / 1.15.
• Scenario 3: The Employer fails to make a significant interim payment correctly certified by the Engineer, causing the Contractor severe cash flow problems and forcing them to take out expensive short-term loans. Can the Contractor claim the financing costs and the profit they lost on another job they couldn’t take due to lack of funds?
  • Likely Outcome (Both Editions):
    • The Contractor is entitled to financing charges on the late payment itself under Clause 14.8.
    • The cost of additional expensive loans might be argued as direct loss resulting from the breach, but could be contested.
    • The lost profit on another job is almost certainly consequential loss and would be barred by the first paragraph of Clause 17.6 / 1.15.
• Scenario 4 (2017 specific): The Employer terminates for convenience (Clause 15.5). The Contractor claims substantial compensation, including loss of expected profit on the remaining work.
  • Likely Outcome (2017): The Employer’s liability for this termination is calculated under Clause 15.6/15.7. While Clause 15.7 payment is an exception to the mutual exclusion of consequential loss, the Employer’s overall liability cap under Clause 1.15 (paragraph 3) does apply, potentially limiting the total payout unless a specific sum for this cap is stated (and is high enough) in the Contract Data. Loss of profit is typically included in the Clause 15.6 calculation itself.

---

6️⃣ Suggestions for Clarity and Improvement

While FIDIC aims for clarity, certain aspects might need tailoring:

• Defining “Indirect or Consequential Loss”: As mentioned, this is jurisdiction-dependent. If significant disputes are anticipated around this, consider adding a specific definition in the Particular Conditions clarifying what types of losses (e.g., loss of revenue, loss of production, loss related to third-party contracts) are intended to be captured by this exclusion.
• Defining “Gross Negligence” (2017): Similar to the above, the legal threshold for “gross negligence” varies. If this is a concern, a definition in the PCs might be warranted, though often difficult to agree upon.
• Specifying the Cap Amounts:
  • Crucial Step: Don’t rely on the defaults unless they have been consciously assessed as appropriate. Set explicit monetary caps in the Contract Data / Particular Conditions for both Contractor’s and (in 2017) Employer’s liability if the Accepted Contract Amount (or termination value) is not suitable.
  • Consider sub-caps? While FIDIC standard forms don’t explicitly use them in this clause, parties sometimes negotiate sub-limits for specific types of liability within the overall cap via PCs (e.g., a specific limit for liability arising from design defects, separate from other performance issues). This adds complexity but can refine risk allocation.
• Reviewing Exceptions:
  • Carefully list the excepted Sub-Clauses in the PCs if amending the standard list. Use the GP2 principle: state clearly if you are adding to the list, deleting from it, or replacing it.
  • Example PC (2017): “Sub-Clause 1.15, second paragraph: The exceptions listed in sub-paragraphs (i) to (iv) are deleted and replaced by the following: [List specific Sub-Clauses relevant to the project that are NOT subject to the Contractor’s overall liability cap]”.
  • Indian Context: While the core principles are international, ensure the definitions and exclusions align with interpretations under the Indian Contract Act, 1872. For instance, how “remoteness of damage” is assessed might influence how “consequential loss” is interpreted locally. No specific technical standards are directly relevant here, but legal precedent is key.

---

7️⃣ Final Takeaways

Here’s the bottom line on Limitation of Liability:

• ✅ Essential Clause: Provides vital commercial protection and predictability for both parties.
• ⚖️ Mutual Exclusion: Both 1999 and 2017 versions mutually exclude liability for indirect/consequential losses (loss of use, profit etc.), subject to specific exceptions.
• 💰 Contractor Cap: Both editions cap the Contractor’s total liability (usually at the Contract Price), except for specific carve-outs like indemnities and IPR.
• 🆕 Employer Cap (2017): The 2017 edition introduces a much-needed explicit cap on the Employer’s total liability, enhancing contractual balance.
• ✍️ Customization is Key: Don’t just accept the defaults! Carefully consider and define the actual monetary caps and review the standard exceptions in the Contract Data / Particular Conditions to ensure they fit the project’s specific risk profile.
• 🚫 No Shield for Misconduct: Fraud, deliberate default, reckless misconduct (and gross negligence in 2017) bypass these limitations.
• 🔗 Read Holistically: Always interpret this clause in conjunction with indemnity, termination, and specific cost clauses it references.

Understanding and carefully negotiating/drafting this clause based on the specific project context and governing law is critical for effective risk management.

Checklist 1: Mutual Exclusion of Indirect/Consequential Loss

(Generally applicable to both 1999 & 2017 Editions, but note the different exceptions)

Checklist Item	Status (☐)
1. Confirm the clause clearly states that neither Party is liable to the other for loss of use, loss of profit, loss of contract, or other indirect/consequential loss.	☐
2. Identify the specific exceptions listed in the clause where liability for such losses is permitted (e.g., termination payments, specific indemnities). (Note: The list differs between Clause 17.6 and Clause 1.15 – verify against the correct edition).	☐
3. Assess if the standard exceptions are appropriate for this specific contract. Should any be added or removed via Particular Conditions?	☐
4. Consider if the terms “indirect” and “consequential” loss require further definition in the Particular Conditions based on the governing law and project specifics to avoid ambiguity. (Legal advice recommended).	☐

---

Checklist 2: Contractor’s Overall Liability Cap

(Applicable to both Clause 17.6 (1999) and Clause 1.15 (2017))

Checklist Item	Status (☐)
1. Verify that the clause establishes a total liability cap for the Contractor towards the Employer.	☐
2. Check if a specific monetary sum or percentage for this cap is stated in the Contract Data (2017) / Particular Conditions (1999).	☐
3. If no specific sum is stated, confirm understanding and acceptance of the default cap (usually the Accepted Contract Amount). Is this default appropriate?	☐
4. Identify the specific exceptions listed in the clause (i.e., liabilities not subject to this overall cap, such as specific indemnities, IPR, utilities, Employer’s equipment). (Note: The list differs slightly between Clause 17.6 and Clause 1.15 – verify against the correct edition).	☐
5. Assess if these standard exceptions to the cap are appropriate. Should any liabilities be added to, or removed from, this list of exceptions via Particular Conditions?	☐

---

Checklist 3: Employer’s Overall Liability Cap

(Specifically for Clause 1.15 (2017 Edition))

Checklist Item	Status (☐)
1. Verify that the clause establishes a total liability cap for the Employer towards the Contractor.	☐
2. Check if a specific monetary sum or percentage for this cap is stated in the Contract Data.	☐
3. If no specific sum is stated, confirm understanding and acceptance of the default cap (usually linked to the calculation under Sub-Clause 15.6(i) [Valuation after Termination for Employer’s Convenience]). Is this default calculation appropriate and clear?	☐
4. Identify the specific exceptions listed in the clause (i.e., liabilities not subject to this overall cap, such as payment upon termination by Contractor (Clause 16.4), specific Employer indemnities (Clause 17.5), and liabilities under Clause 1.17).	☐
5. Assess if these standard exceptions to the Employer’s cap are appropriate. Should any liabilities be added to, or removed from, this list of exceptions via Particular Conditions?	☐

---

Checklist 4: Misconduct Exclusions

(Applicable to both editions, with slight wording difference)

Checklist Item	Status (☐)
1. Confirm the clause states that the limitations of liability do not apply in cases of fraud, deliberate default, or reckless misconduct by the defaulting Party.	☐
2. (For 2017 Edition Only) Confirm that “gross negligence” is also included in the list of conduct not protected by the liability limitations.	☐
3. Consider if the definitions of these terms (fraud, deliberate default, reckless misconduct, gross negligence) are sufficiently clear under the governing law, or if clarification is needed in the Particular Conditions. (Legal advice recommended).	☐

---

Disclaimer: These checklists are intended as a general guide. They must be adapted to the specific contract edition, project details, and the governing law. Always consult with legal and contractual experts when drafting or reviewing contract clauses.

Scenario 1: Employer Submits a Claim Including Loss of Profit; Contractor Responds Citing the Exclusion.

(Assume Employer sent a claim letter dated 10-Oct-2023 for costs related to a defect, including a substantial sum for lost production revenue).

SAMPLE LETTER 1: Contractor’s Response

To: [Employer’s Representative Name & Address]
From: [Contractor’s Representative Name & Address]
Date: 25-October-2023
Subject: Contract: [Contract Name/Number] – Response to Your Claim Letter Ref [Employer’s Claim Ref] dated 10-Oct-2023 – Limitation of Liability (Clause 1.15 / 17.6)

Dear [Employer’s Representative Name],

We acknowledge receipt of your letter dated 10-October-2023, detailing a claim amounting to [Total Claim Amount] concerning [Briefly describe the issue].

We are currently reviewing the details regarding the alleged defect and the direct costs associated with rectification claimed under item(s) [Reference specific items/paragraphs in Employer’s claim].

However, we must draw your attention to Clause 1.15 (or Clause 17.6 if using the 1999 edition) of the Conditions of Contract. Specifically, the first paragraph states that neither Party shall be liable to the other for “loss of use of any Works, loss of profit, loss of any contract or for any indirect or consequential loss or damage”.

The amount of [Amount claimed for lost profit/revenue] claimed under item(s) [Reference specific items] in your letter appears to fall under this category of excluded loss (specifically loss of profit/revenue, which is typically considered consequential). Therefore, we cannot accept liability for this portion of your claim.

We request that you review your claim in light of Clause 1.15 / 17.6 and potentially revise it to reflect only direct losses potentially recoverable under the Contract.

We reserve all our rights under the Contract. We are open to discussing this matter further at your convenience.

Yours sincerely,

[Contractor’s Representative Signature]
[Contractor’s Representative Name]

---

Scenario 2 (Using 2017 Edition): Contractor Submits a Large Claim; Employer Responds Noting Potential Cap.

(Assume Contractor sent a claim letter dated 15-Nov-2023 for a significant amount due to alleged Employer breaches).

SAMPLE LETTER 2: Employer’s Response

To: [Contractor’s Representative Name & Address]
From: [Employer’s Representative Name & Address]
Date: 05-December-2023
Subject: Contract: [Contract Name/Number] – Response to Your Claim Letter Ref [Contractor’s Claim Ref] dated 15-Nov-2023 – Employer’s Limitation of Liability (Clause 1.15)

Dear [Contractor’s Representative Name],

We acknowledge receipt of your claim submission dated 15-November-2023, amounting to [Total Claim Amount] regarding [Briefly describe the basis of the claim].

We are currently undertaking a detailed review of the contractual and factual basis of your claim. This response is without prejudice to our position on the merits of the claim itself.

However, we wish to remind you of the provisions of Clause 1.15 of the General Conditions of Contract, specifically the third paragraph concerning the limitation of the Employer’s total liability to the Contractor. As stated in the Contract Data [or As calculated under Sub-Clause 15.6(i), if no sum stated], the Employer’s total liability under or in connection with the Contract (other than for the specific exceptions listed in Clause 1.15) shall not exceed [Stated Cap Amount/Reference to Default Calculation].

While we continue our review, please be advised that any amount which may be found due to you in respect of this claim, when aggregated with any other liabilities of the Employer under the Contract (excluding the exceptions), will be subject to this overall limitation.

We reserve all our contractual rights.

Yours sincerely,

[Employer’s Representative Signature]
[Employer’s Representative Name]

---

Scenario 3: Contractor Proactively Notifies Employer Regarding Potential Aggregate Claims Approaching the Contractor’s Cap.

(This is less common as a formal letter but might be used for strategic reasons or record-keeping).

SAMPLE LETTER 3: Contractor’s Notification

To: [Employer’s Representative Name & Address]
From: [Contractor’s Representative Name & Address]
Date: 10-January-2024
Subject: Contract: [Contract Name/Number] – Notification Regarding Aggregate Claims and Contractor’s Limitation of Liability (Clause 1.15 / 17.6)

Dear [Employer’s Representative Name],

For the purposes of clarity and proactive contract management, we wish to draw your attention to the status of potential liabilities under the Contract in relation to the Contractor’s total liability cap specified under Clause 1.15 (or Clause 17.6 if using the 1999 edition) and the Contract Data / Particular Conditions.

Based on our records of claims notified and/or potential liabilities indicated by the Employer to date, including [mention specific claim refs or issues briefly, e.g., Claim Ref XYZ, potential LDs, rectification costs for issue ABC], the potential aggregate sum appears to be approaching the overall limitation cap of [Stated Cap Amount or Accepted Contract Amount].

This notification is provided for awareness and record purposes at this stage. We trust this assists in managing expectations regarding potential future recoveries under the Contract, subject always to the specific terms and exceptions outlined in Clause 1.15 / 17.6.

We remain committed to fulfilling our obligations under the Contract.

Yours sincerely,

[Contractor’s Representative Signature]
[Contractor’s Representative Name]

---

Scenario 4: Claim Including Allegation of Misconduct Bypassing the Limitation.

(A party making a claim believes the other’s actions constitute fraud, deliberate default, reckless misconduct, or gross negligence).

SAMPLE LETTER 4: Claim Incorporating Misconduct Allegation

To: [Other Party’s Representative Name & Address]
From: [Claiming Party’s Representative Name & Address]
Date: 15-February-2024
Subject: Contract: [Contract Name/Number] – Claim for [Issue] & Inapplicability of Limitation of Liability (Clause 1.15 / 17.6) due to [Fraud / Deliberate Default / Reckless Misconduct / Gross Negligence]

Dear [Other Party’s Representative Name],

Pursuant to the Conditions of Contract, we hereby submit a claim concerning [Describe the issue and the resulting loss/damage]. The detailed particulars supporting this claim are attached.

The circumstances giving rise to this claim involve actions by [Your Party / Your Personnel] which constitute [select the relevant term: fraud / deliberate default / reckless misconduct / gross negligence]. Specifically, [Provide a brief but clear factual basis for the allegation – e.g., “the deliberate submission of falsified test certificates dated…”, “the repeated refusal to follow explicit safety instructions detailed in Engineer’s letters ref…”, “the reckless disregard for design parameters resulting in…”].

As a consequence of this conduct, we refer you to the final paragraph of Clause 1.15 (or Clause 17.6 if using 1999 edition), which states that the limitations of liability set out in the Sub-Clause shall not apply in such cases.

Therefore, our claim for the full amount of [Claim Amount], detailed in the attachment, is submitted without regard to the overall liability cap or the exclusion of consequential losses typically provided by Clause 1.15 / 17.6.

We require payment of the claimed amount within [Number] days. We reserve all rights, including the right to refer this matter to Dispute Resolution under Clause 21 should this claim not be settled.

Yours sincerely,

[Claiming Party’s Representative Signature]
[Claiming Party’s Representative Name]

---

Important Considerations:

• Legal Advice: These are examples only. The actual wording must be carefully tailored to the specific facts, the contract edition, the governing law, and should always be reviewed by legal counsel before sending.
• Tone: While firm, the tone should remain professional. Allegations of misconduct (Scenario 4) are particularly serious and should not be made lightly – they require strong evidence.
• Supporting Details: Claims and responses should always be supported by detailed particulars as required by the Contract (e.g., under Clause 20). These letters often serve as cover or initial responses, with detailed backup attached or following separately.
• Contract References: Always refer to the specific contract and relevant clause numbers accurately.