Focus On
Handsholdingemptybox

Sign here, see you later: Getting ghosted in commercial transactions

Wednesday, August 05, 2020 @ 1:06 PM | By Noel Courage and Jennie Yum


Noel Courage %>
Noel Courage
Jennie Yum %>
Jennie Yum
The global scramble for personal protective equipment (PPE) has highlighted basic contract issues, as governments and health institutions try to parse legitimate sources of PPE.

Some of the usual checks and balances in government contracts and tendering processes for PPE have gone out the window in view of the COVID-19 pandemic.

A lot of PPE has been successfully procured, but there have also been agreements made to buy PPE, with no follow through. This article looks at contractual issues and remedies to deal with suppliers that cannot, or choose not to, deliver. These considerations can apply to any sale contract, not just PPE contracts.

Broker/distributor

As a result of supply chain shortages, buyers have had to vet other brokers and distributors that suddenly appeared on North American radars, claiming to have access to PPE. Yet, some brokers claiming to have access to PPE actually have no ability to deliver and, either due to overpromising or sometimes even outright fraud, the PPE shipments simply never materialize. In one example, the New York state government allegedly wired millions of dollars to a person with no ability to deliver. New York’s procurement rules typically prohibit payment until after an order has been fu­­lfilled, however, those restrictions had been suspended to fill the urgent need for PPE in the state.

Manufacturer

Even if a manufacturer is legitimate and the product is acceptable quality, there can be issues. For example, a private Ontario group reached a contract for five million masks. A $500,000 deposit was paid to the manufacturer, and the masks were to be shipped directly by the manufacturer to Ontario. The shipment was apparently at the airport when another group offered to pay more, and the shipment was diverted, leaving the Ontario buyers without their masks.

Prevention, recourse, due diligence

To avoid being left empty-handed, basic contractual due diligence cannot be dropped.  In the New York state situation mentioned above, the middleman apparently tweeted at the White House and was subsequently recommended to the state — it seems improbable that there could have been much due diligence in that situation.

These examples underscore the need for buyers to look past the middleman, where possible, and verify the source of their product. Basic due diligence research includes confirming whether the supplier is properly registered and licensed to produce PPE — i.e., does it have the necessary certifications or authorizations to manufacture, distribute and, importantly, export the product? Numerous countries have restricted exports of PPE. China’s export regulations, for example, require that PPE leaving the country have approval from the National Medical Products Administration (NMPA). Similarly, exports of PPE from the U.S. require express authorization from the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA).

Contract terms, damages

If a contract has been agreed upon with a seller that refuses to deliver, this is an anticipatory repudiation of the contract by the seller. Under contract law, the buyer still has the option to demand performance of the contract. It is more likely that the buyer will exercise its right to immediately terminate the contract for breach (as in the New York example above, where the purchase contract was subsequently terminated). A lawyer can advise on the specific recourse for the breach depending on the jurisdiction and whether there is fraud involved or not. It may also be possible to sue for damages. In the unlikely event that the broker or manufacturer is able to fulfil the contract, it may be possible to sue for specific performance, requiring the seller to deliver on its obligations. There are jurisdictional challenges when suing for breach of contract internationally, and then trying to enforce a judgment.

Buyers must ensure that the purchase contract is drafted in a way that protects their interests. Considerations include:

  • Choice of law provision: the purchase contract should ideally be under the law and exclusive jurisdiction of a Canadian province or U.S. state where the buyer is located.
  • Time for performance: there should be strict conditions for performance specifying the date/time of delivery, product quality, and amount to be delivered. Penalties may be inserted in the agreement in case of non-delivery or late delivery.
  • Conditions relating to product quality are vital — don’t permit waivers of basic sale of goods provisions, such as fitness for purpose and merchantable quality. Insert representations and warranties on performance. Note, however, that a condition warranty that is enforceable in one jurisdiction may not be in another, and these should therefore be drafted with the assistance of an experienced lawyer.
  • Method and timing of payment: funds should be paid into escrow to the extent possible, not to a broker or manufacturer directly. The final payment should only be released upon delivery and satisfactory quality inspection. A validation service can assist with inspecting and certifying products before a buyer takes delivery.
  • Consider having ownership pass to the buyer before the goods leave the manufacturer, since apparently others may try to purchase them even while in transit. Insure the goods. Transit arrangements may need to involve a security escort.

Buyers are advised to discuss potential transactions with experienced legal counsel before contracting with a PPE supplier, distributer or broker, or considering a logistics operation to bring PPE into Canada.

Noel Courage is a partner and patent attorney at Bereskin & Parr LLP in Toronto. His practice focuses on patenting and licensing inventions. He can be reached at ncourage@bereskinparr.com. Jennie Yum is an associate at Bereskin & Parr. She can be reached at jyum@bereskinparr.com.

Photo credit / TRADOL LIMYINGCHAROEN
 ISTOCKPHOTO.COM

Interested in writing for us? To learn more about how you can add your voice to 
The Lawyer’s Daily, contact Analysis Editor Peter Carter at peter.carter@lexisnexis.ca or call 647-776-6740.