EXCLUDING CONSEQUENTIAL LOSS IN PETROLEUM JOINT OPERATING AGREEMENTS WITH EMPHASIS ON BRITISH LEGAL SYSTEM

Document Type : Research Paper

Authors

1 Assistant Professor, Faculty of Law and Political Sciences, University of Tehran, Iran

2 Associate Professor, Faculty of Law and Political Sciences, University of Tehran, Iran

3 PhD in Oil and Gas Law, Faculty of Law and Political Sciences, University of Tehran, Iran

Abstract

A well-known method for risk management in petroleum Joint Operating Agreements (JOA) is the use of knock for knock liability clauses. In one type of such clauses, parties in the JOA exclude their liability to consequential loss. The British courts try to construe and interpret the exclusion of consequential loss and loss of profit narrowly and, therefore, insisted on recoverability of such losses to the extent possible despite the parties’ agreement to exclude them. Furthermore, loss of profit may be considered as direct losses in British and American legal systems. Under Iranian legal system, directness is a condition, among others, for recoverability of damages, but, such condition may not be considered as equivalent to direct damage in Britain and accordingly the concept of indirect damage is different in the two countries. Therefore, the usefulness of excluding consequential loss responsibility in the contracts with applicable laws and regulations of Iran is questionable if the parties do not define a clear and distinguishing definition of it in such contracts. Despite the existing doubts with regard to recoverability of loss of profit, probably all Iranian scholars believe in recoverability of loss of profit and, therefore, it should be considered as direct damage.    

Keywords


الف) فارسی
­1. امامی، اسدالله؛ عبدی، صادق (1387). «تحلیل مبانی فقهی- حقوقی شرط عدم مسئولیت قراردادی»، مجلۀ مجتمع آموزش عالی قم، 2.
2. ایزانلو، محسن (1390). شروط محدودکننده و ساقط‌کنندۀ مسئولیت در قراردادها، شرکت سهامی انتشار.
3. سکوتی، رضا؛ شمالی، نگار (1390). «جایگاه عدم‌النفع در نظام حقوقی ایران»، مجلۀ فقه و حقوق اسلامی، ش 1 و 2.
4. شکاری، روشن علی(1380). «نقد و بررسی تبصرۀ 2 مادۀ 515 ق.آ.د.م (عدم‌النفع)»، دانشکدۀ حقوق و علوم سیاسی دانشگاه تهران، ش 52.
5. شهیدی مهدی (1382). حقوق مدنی، آثار قراردادها و تعهدات، ج 3، چ اول، تهران: مجد.
6. صمدی اهری، محمد هاشم (1386). «عدم النفع قابل مطالبه نیست»، مجلۀ تحقیقات حقوقی آزاد، ش 1.
7. قاسمی، محسن (1388). «نقش قابل پیش‌بینی بودن خسارت در مسئولیت مدنی قراردادی و قهری»، مجلۀ تحقیقات حقوقی آزاد، ش 5،6 و 7.
8. کاتوزیان، ناصر (1376). حقوق مدنی: قواعد عمومی قراردادها، ج 4، شرکت انتشار با همکاری شرکت برنا.
9. نکوئی، محمد (1380). «مصادیق بطلان شرط عدم مسئولیت (مطالعۀ تطبیقی)»، فصلنامۀ مطالعات حقوق خصوصی دانشکدۀ حقوق و علوم سیاسی دانشگاه تهران، دورۀ 44، ش 2.
 
ب) خارجی
10. Ashley, Phillip Spencer, Bob Palmer, and Judith Aldersey-Williams (2014). “An International Issue: ‘Loss of Profits’ and ‘ Consequential Loss’”, Business Law International 15, No. 3 , 261–66. http://www.ibanet.org/Document/Default.aspx?DocumentUid=c92590b9-405f -45b7-9b1e-dcd9ffdf18ee.
11. Garner, Bryan A. Black’s Law Dictionary. Ninth Edit. West Group (2009).
12. Gay, Robert (2015). “Excluding Consequential Damages”, In Offshore Contracts and Liabilities, edited by Baris Soyer and Andrew Tettenborn, 1st ed. Abingdon: Informa Law from Routledge.
13. Treitel, Guenter H. (2003). Treitel on the Law of Contract, 11th ed. Sweet & Maxwell.
 
فرم‌ها و مدل‌های قراردادی
14. International Association of Petroleum Negotiators, Joint Operating Agreement (“AIPN JOA”), 2012, www.aipn.org.
15. American Association of Petroleum Landsmen (AAPL). “Model Form Operating Agreement (‘Form 610’),” 1989. www.landman.org.
16. AMPLA. “Joint Operating Agreement (‘AMPLA JOA’),” 2011. http://www.ampla.org.
17. Canadian Association of Petroleum Landmen. “Joint Operating Agreement (‘CAPL JOA’),” 1998. www.landman.ca.
18. Federal Republic of Brazil (Ministry of Mines and Energy). “Concession Agreement for the Exploration, Development and Production of Oil and Natural Gas (‘Brazil MCA’),” 2008. http://www.eisourcebook.org/cms/Brazil, Model Concession Agreement, ANP 10th Rnd, 2008.pdf.
19. International Association of Petroleum Negotiators. Joint Operating Agreement (“AIPN JOA”), 2012. www.aipn.org.
20. Kurdistan Regional Government. “Production Sharing Contract (‘KRC PSC’),” 2007. http://cabinet.gov.krd/pdf/3_KRG_Model_PSC.pdf.
21. National Iranian Oil Company. “Engineering, Procurement, Construction & Financing (‘NIOC EPCF’),” 2012.
22.———. “Service Contract for Development Operations (‘NIOC SCDO’),” 2008.
23.Norwegian Petroleum Directorate. “Joint Operating Agreement (‘NPD JOA’),” www.npd.no.
24. Oil and Gas UK. “Joint Operating Agreement (‘UK JOA’),” 2009. www.oilandgas.org.uk.
25. Republic of Iraq. “Iraqi Model Producing Oil Field Technical Service Contract (‘PFTSC’),” 2009. http://platformlondon.org/documents/PFTSC-23-Apr-09.pdf.
دعاوی
26. Addax Ltd v. Arcadia Petroleum Ltd [2000] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 493.
27. Biotronik AG v Conor Medsystems Ireland Ltd 2014 WL 1237154 (NY 27 March 2014).
28. Croudace Construction Ltd v. Cawoods Concrete Ltd [1978] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 55 (CA).
29. Hadley v. Baxendale, 9 Exch 341, 156 Eng. Rep. 145 (1854).
30. Internet Broadcasting Corp. Ltd v. Mar LLC (MAR Hedge) [2009] EWHC 884 (Ch); [2009] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 295.
31. Markerstudy Insurance Co. Ltd v. Endsleigh Insurance Services Ltd [2010] EWHC 281 (Comm).