Back

Our offices will be closed over the Easter weekend from 5:30pm on Thursday 28 March. We will reopen as usual at 9am on Tuesday 2 April.

Get in Touch Menu

Share purchase agreements – enforceability of onerous clauses

10 March 2013

Great care should be taken to find the right balance between a clause which protects your position and one which may be struck down as a penalty clause.

A penalty clause is usually described as one which provides for the payment of a sum of money on breach, where the sum is unconscionable in comparison to the amount which would have been a genuine pre-estimate of the loss suffered by the innocent party as a result of the breach.

It has long been held that a clause which imposes an obligation on a party to pay ‘extravagant or unconscionable’ compensation for breach of contract may be deemed to be a ‘penalty clause’ and therefore unenforceable.

Similarly, a restraint of trade clause in a share purchase agreement will be unenforceable to the extent that it goes beyond what is reasonable to protect the interests of the purchaser.

A recent case – Cavendish Square Holdings BVand Another v El Makdessi – has upheld a clause in a share purchase agreement which said that no further instalments of the purchase price would be payable if the vendor breached one of his restrictive covenants. This clause was not considered to be a penalty as there was, on the facts of the case, commercial justification for the provision based on the substantial loss of goodwill arising from the breach. The terms of the share purchase agreement had been negotiated on a level playing field.

The High Court held that the restrictive covenant imposed on the vendor, which was expressed to last for no less than eight and a half years, was not an unreasonable restraint of trade. It was justified in this case as the vendor would be a formidable competitor and the buyer had paid very substantial consideration for the goodwill in the business. Again, the court took account of the fact that the deal had been negotiated on a level playing field and it was held that the restrictions were reasonable in all of the circumstances.

As always, if you need commercial and pragmatic advice, we’re here to help so please get in touch.

Contact us

Disclaimer: All legal information is correct at the time of publication but please be aware that laws may change over time. This article contains general legal information but should not be relied upon as legal advice. Please seek professional legal advice about your specific situation - contact us; we’d be delighted to help.
Contact
Willans
Solicitors
About
Related services
Share this article
Resources to help

Related articles

Changes to company law – what businesses need to know

Corporate

This week, initial changes to company law – including the biggest changes to Companies House since it began – will start to take effect. Here, our corporate and commercial team…

Chris Wills LLB (Hons)
Partner

Act to combat economic crime has received royal assent

Corporate

Earlier this year we reported on the register of overseas entities, which was created under the Economic Crime (Transparency and Enforcement) Act 2022. This move formed part of a significant…

Chris Wills LLB (Hons)
Partner

Overview: Family investment companies

Corporate

A growing trend of late has been the increasing use of family investment companies. Our corporate & commercial team gives an overview of what they are and their benefits. What…

Helen Howes LLM
Associate, solicitor
Contact us