Back

Please note our offices and reception are closed on Good Friday and Easter Monday. We will re-open as usual at 9am on Tuesday 22 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

Preparing for a management buyout

Corporate

For owners looking to sell their business, a management buyout (MBO) is one of a multitude of possible options available. What do you need to consider when preparing for a…

Peter Raybould LLB (Hons)
Partner

Companies House identity verification requirements to come into force from autumn 2025

Corporate

Under the Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Act 2023 (ECCTA), reforms have been introduced to Companies House concerning identity verification, which will become compulsory from autumn 2025. Our corporate solicitors…

Helen Howes LLM
Senior associate, solicitor

Helping Joedan on their journey

Real estate

For almost three decades, Willans has advised a nationally renowned specialist in trade supply and home and commercial improvements. Here, in the first of a series of articles, we reflect…

Willans
Solicitors
Contact us