Home Page

CLASH ON DEMAND
examines the controversial issue of "on-demand" bonds
and current attempts to make the whole bonds system more equitable
and efficient for both sides

An "on-demand" bond is an undertaking given by a bank to the purchaser that it will pay to the purchaser on demand the whole or part of the amount of the bond usually 10-20 per cent of the contract price. The obligation is unconditional; there is no requirement for the purchaser to prove default by the contractor or the amount of damages it is entitled to. Nor is there any right for the contractor to claim to set-off from the sum payable under the bond the amount of a counter-claim it may have against the purchaser. The bank's obligation to pay is primary and independent of the contract.

The bond should stipulate that the purchaser must accompany any demand for payment with a statement setting out the respect in which the contractor is in breach of contract. The bank will deal only in documents and not verify their adequacy. In effect, the bond is cash-in-hand and the obligation of the bank to pay under the bond is similar to that of a bank under an irrevocable and confirmed letter of credit.

Most contractors and some purchasers oppose "on-demand" bonds for two reasons. First, they can be called without the contractor being in default. Second, the bank will deduct the amount of the bond from the total credit it allows the contractor, reducing its ability to undertake other business.

Against these reasons it is argued that under a UK contract no purchaser would be likely to call a bond without being satisfied that the contractor was either in default or insolvent and that it would have a bona fide claim for damages equal at least to the amount of the call on the bond. Cases of "unfair calling" have arisen on overseas contracts where purchasers, usually agencies of the government, are notoriously irresponsible and the UK contractor has no possibility of obtaining redress under the local legal system. In a UK context, if it were found on settlement of the contractor's final account that the amount of damages due to the purchaser was less than the amount paid out under the bond, it is arguable that the purchaser would be obliged to refund the difference.

And if the contractor cannot raise a bond for say, 10 per cent of the contract price, the purchaser may have concerns over whether the contractor has the financial resources to perform the contract. Projects in the Middle East worth millions of pounds have raised bonding problems for British firms, but those days are gone.

There is nothing inherently unfair in an "on-demand" bond. It can be used unfairly by an unscrupulous purchaser, but so can many other terms of the contract. What is most unfair is a system of bonding which denies to the purchaser access to cash when the contractor is in serious default or insolvent. In either event, the purchaser will have to bring in another firm to finish the uncompleted work. But replacing a contractor is neither cheap nor easy. In these circumstances the purchaser needs immediate access to funds to finance the additional costs incurred.

A recent case in the House of Lords has demonstrated that a performance bond in the traditional form annexed to one of the industry standard forms of contract either Joint Contract Tribunal, Institution of Civil Engineering or model forms is incapable of meeting the purchaser's needs (see this page).

Disliking on-demand bonds, but recognising the current weakness, the ICE is attempting with the banks and the British Association of Insurers to produce an acceptable form of default bond. This would provide for the default and the amount due under the bond, taking into account cross-claims, to be determined by adjudication within limited time periods. But given the complexity of claims and counterclaims, the practicality of rapid adjudication is doubtful, especially as the insurers want to involve themselves in proceedings. At present, the advice to purchasers is to insist on the contractor providing an on-demand bond from a bank.

SM

Peter Marsh and Frank Griffiths are associates at project strategy and contract management consultancy FGA Ltd, tel: 0116 279 3383


Previous Page Home Page Next page