Skip to main content

Enforceability aspects of a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU)

The question whether a MoU is binding or non-binding is a question of general contract law. As is the case in a contract a MoU will be binding if there is a valid offer and acceptance, consideration and intention to be bound by the agreement. The most important pre-condition for a MoU to be legally binding is that it should be certain. The courts do not expect commercial documents to be drafted with strict precision. However, for an MOU to have legal effect, the essential terms must be sufficiently clear and certain.

Arguments in favour of enforceability of a MoU

  1. When the terms of a MoU are clear and conclusive and a contrary intention not to be bound by its terms does not exist a MoU should be given effect to as a normal contract.
  2. Merely because a MoU is a preliminary agreement by which the terms agreed upon are to be put in a more formal shape does not prevent a binding contract.
(See, Kollipara Sriramulu (dead) by L.R. v T. Aswatha Narayana (dead) by L.R., AIR 1968 SC 1028;
“Where the documents or letters relied on as constituting a contract contemplate the execution of a further contract between the parties, it is a question of construction whether the execution of a further contract is a condition or term of the bargain or whether it is a mere expression of the desire of the parties as to the manner in which the transaction already agreed to will in fact go through. In the former case there is no enforceable contract, while in the latter there is a binding contract.”

See also, Currimbhoy and Company Limited v. L.A. Creet and Ors, AIR 1933 PC 29).

3.      A MoU is enforceable on the principles of equity. Equity holds people bound by a contract, which, though deficient in some requirement as to form, is nevertheless an existing contract.

(See, Subimalchandra Chatterji v. Radhanath Ray, AIR 1934 Cal. 235).
  1. A MoU signed between parties is enforceable in law. The execution of a separate agreement is not a condition precedent and the Supreme Court in more than one case, cited by the appellant herein, has held that such contracts are not to be construed as contingent contracts and are capable of enforcement.

(See, Millenia Realtors Private Limited v. SJR Infrastructure (Private) Limited, 2005 (6) KarLJ 36).
  1. In some cases even oral correspondence was construed by the Court to constitute a enforceable contract where there was sufficient manifestation of the interests of parties. Thus, the argument in favour of enforceability of a MoU becomes stronger.
(“It is the duty of the Court to construe correspondence with a view to arrive at a conclusion whether there was any meeting of mind between the parties, which could create a binding contract between them but the Court is not empowered to create a contract for the parties by going outside the clear language used in the correspondence, except insofar as there are some appropriate implications of law to be drawn. Unless from the correspondence, it can unequivocally and clearly emerge that the parties were ad idem to the terms, it cannot be said that an agreement had come into existence between them through correspondence. The Court is required to review what the parties wrote and how they acted and from that material to infer whether the intention as expressed in correspondence was to bring into existence a mutually binding contract. The intention of the parties is to be gathered only from the expressions used in the correspondence and the meaning it conveys and in case it shows that there had been meeting of mind between the parties and they had actually reached an agreement, upon all material terms, then and then alone can it be said that a binding contract was capable of being spelt out from the correspondence.”
See, Rickmers Verwaltung Gimb H. v. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd., (1999)1 SCC 1).
  1. In some cases the Courts have even enforced MoU’s where its term period and validity had expired. In this case, the MoU was kept on hold owing to the model code of conduct brought forth by the Election Commission due to which it expired.
(See, Intelligence Decision System (India) Pvt. Ltd. V. Chief Election Commissioner, AIR 2006 Ker 229).
Arguments against enforceability of a MoU
The arguments against enforceability of a MoU are not very strong. However, some of them are:-
  1. A MoU is a privately entered agreement which is contingent on the execution of a further agreement. Such a contingent agreement is not sufficiently certain and has no basis in law.
  2. From a practical perspective, although an MoU may help to secure some form of commitment of the parties to the negotiation process, it is unlikely to provide commercial certainty to the outcome of the negotiations and hence should not be enforceable.

Concluding remarks:
In MoU, it is important to be aware of the legal and practical implications of the terms of the MoU. MoU may unduly limit future negotiations and impose onerous obligations on the parties.
The enforceability of MoU depends on the circumstances of the negotiations and the terms agreed by the parties.
Though MoU provides some form of commitment of the parties to the negotiation process, it does not provide the 100% commercial certainty to the outcome of the negotiations.


Comments

  1. A memorandum of understanding is an act of understanding for moving forward. This means the parties have come to an agreement and move on. While it is not legally binding, the fact that a contract is imminent is a significant argument.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

PSARA License: To Start a Private Security Agency Business in India

Private Security Agency business is one of the most sought and rapid growing business in India with huge demand and potential. Due to ever evolving demand for private security by industry & business segments, the Private Security Agency business is growing for more than 20% and there is still huge untapped market still wide open for the future ventures. Today in any and every aspect, private security has an important role to play, whether its transfer of cash to ATM, transportation of valuables or protection to key members of business conglomerates. Any Private Security Agency cannot commence its business and operations in India without procurement of license under Private Security Agencies (Regulation) Act, 2005 also known as PSARA License . PSARA License is obtained state wise & is valid for 5 years and had to be renewed after every 5 years. The government fees for PSARA License is as following: 1.        For one (1) District- Rs. 5,000/- 2.        For more th

Non-Banking Financial Companies (NBFC)

A Non-Banking Financial Company (NBFC) is a  company registered under the Companies Act, 1956 and is engaged in the business of loans and advances, acquisition of shares stock/bonds/debentures/securities issued by Government or local authority or other securities of like marketable nature, leasing, hire-purchase, insurance business, chit business but does not include any institution whose principal business is that of agriculture activity, industrial activity, sale/purchase/construction of immovable property. A non-banking institution which is a company and which has its principal business of receiving deposits under any scheme or arrangement or any other manner, or lending in any manner is also a non-banking financial company (Residuary non-banking company). Advantages of NBFC a)       it can provide loans and credit facilities, b)       it can trade in  money market instruments c)       it can do wealth management such as Managing portfolios of stocks and shares d)     

Investment Frauds by Investment Advisers

Today driven by the promise of higher returns than the saving accounts or fixed deposits, most of the small and retail investors are moving their investments under the guidance of Investment Advisers. “ Investment Advisers ” means any person, who for consideration, is engaged in the business of providing investment advice to clients or other persons or group of persons and includes any person who holds out himself as an investment adviser, by whatever name called. Investment Advisers who make public appearance or make recommendations or offer an opinion concerning securities or public offers through public media while making recommendations through public media are required to comply with the relevant applicable laws. What is an Investment Advice: - “ Investment Advice”  is an advice relating to investing in, purchasing, selling or otherwise dealing in securities or investment products, and advice on investment portfolio containing securities or investment products, whether

Types of Companies under New Companies Act-2013

With new testament of Corporate law in force has introduced several different types of companies with special features. ONE PERSON COMPANY (OPC) One Person Company is defined in Sub- Section 62 of Section 2 of The Companies Act, 2013, which reads as follows: 'One Person Company means a company which has only one member' It shall also be important to note that Section 3 classifies OPC as a Private Company for all the legal purposes with only one member. All the provisions related to the private company are applicable to an OPC, unless otherwise expressly excluded. Ø   Only a natural person who is an Indian citizen and resident in India- ü   shall be eligible to incorporate a One Person Company; ü   shall be a nominee for the sole member of a One Person Company. Ø   No person shall be eligible to incorporate more than a One Person Company or become nominee in more than one such company. Ø   No minor shall become member or nominee of the One Person Company

NCLT has Exclusive Jurisdiction for all the Company Matters

In deciding an appeal in the matter of MAIF Investment India PTE Ltd. v/s Ind-Barath Power Infra Limited & Ors ., Company Appeal (AT) No. 334 of 2018, NCLAT has reviewed and decided on the issue of exclusive jurisdiction of NCLT in all the company matters and to bar the jurisdiction of civil courts including   complex and contentious one. The appeal was against the order given by NCLT, Hyderabad, where the NCLT, Hyderabad bench declined to entertain the petition under Section 59 of the Companies Act, 2013 for seeking a rectification in the register of members. The alleged dispute involved conversion of compulsory convertible debentures without requisite consent and quorum. NCLT, Hyderabad dismissed the petition stating the reason that issue raised were complex or contentious issue which required the examination of the Arbitration Act, 1996 & Insolvency & Bankruptcy Code, 2016. While dismissing the petition, NCLT, Hyderabad had relied on Supreme Court’s 1998 judge

Legal Obligations of Technology Service Providers as Intermediaries

A database of millions of customers including their contact details are found freely accessible online and are available for sale at a very nominal price at various online social media platforms has brought a serious and basic question in focus- who all can be held responsible and accountable for such unauthorize and illegal acts? Prima facie , the person who is selling the database is responsible under the eyes of law, but do the technology services providers or the platform where such database is been listed, owes any obligation to the customers and can be held responsible for unauthorize acts by a third party on their platform? The technology service providers or the online platform operators are commonly known as “ Intermediaries ”. In India, these technology service providers or Intermediaries are governed by the provisions of Information Technology Act, 2000 (“ IT Act ”) along with Information Technology (Intermediaries Guidelines) Rules, 2011 (“ Intermediary Rules ”)

Nidhi Companies in India

This article enumerates the brief transaction procedure involved in the establishment of a Nidhi Company and the laws relating to Nidhi Company in force in India. It shall be noted that the activities described hereunder covers various relevant legislations, regulations and rules, for the time being in force in India and the legal entity has to obtain approval/register itself with Ministry of Corporate Affairs (“ MCA ”). Preface In the Indian financial sector, Nidhi Company refers to any mutual benefit society notified by the MCA. They are created mainly for cultivating the habit of thrift and savings amongst its members. The amount of business conducted by Nidhi Companies is not as big as commercial banks or deposit taking Non-Banking Finance Companies. Nidhi Companies are highly localized and mostly single office institutions. They are also referred to as mutual benefit societies, because they accept deposits and give loans to only their own members; and membership is limited