When Contracts Contradict: Septo Trading Inc v Tintrade Ltd

Contracts in international trade are often formed by a combination of emails recording expressly agreed terms, but with a reference to standard terms and conditions being incorporated.

Sometimes terms agreed in emails contradict the incorporated standardised terms.

The English Court of Appeal considered this issue in Septo Trading Inc v Tintrade Ltd [2021] EWCA Civ 718 and concluded that what is expressly agreed is to prevail.  


Tintrade Limited (Tintrade) sold a cargo of fuel oil to Septo Trading Inc (Septo) on a FOB basis.

Confirmation of the essential terms of the contract was by way of an email recap (Recap).  As is typical, the Recap stated the quality certificate issued by the loadport inspector would be binding save for fraud or manifest error.

The Recap also incorporated the BP 2007 General Terms and Conditions (BP Terms), where the BP Terms were “not in conflict with the above”.  The BP terms stated that the quality certificate was binding “for invoicing purposes” only, and without prejudice to the buyer’s right to bring a quality claim.

The loadport inspector issued the quality certificate at loadport, but the cargo was later discovered to be outside contractual specification. 

A dispute arose regarding liability for the off-specification cargo.

Tintrade argued the quality certificate was final and binding as per the Recap, since there was no evidence of fraud or manifest error.  Therefore, Septo was barred from bringing a quality claim. 

Septo contended the quality certificate was binding for invoicing purposes only, and so it was not precluded from advancing a claim against Tintrade for breach of contract.

The English High Court held that the terms did not contradict and that the BP Terms qualified the Recap.  Accordingly, Septo was entitled to bring a claim against Tintrade.

The Court of Appeal Decision

The Court of Appeal reversed the High Court ruling and concluded the Recap and BP Terms could not be read together, and consequently the Recap terms were to be preferred.  Central to this finding are the following factors:

  • To implement the BP terms would deprive the Recap of all practical effect. The Recap was for all purposes, while the BP Terms were for the very limited purpose of invoicing only; these are contradictory and cannot be interpreted consistently.
  • A regime in which a quality certificate is binding is fundamentally different from one in which it is not. Where parties have chosen to incorporate this as a condition, they do so as a means of achieving a conclusive determination as to quality.
  • The binding nature of the quality certificate is a central feature of the contract that provides an important measure of certainty for both parties.
  • When considering the intention of the parties in a commercial context, it is not reasonable to conclude they had agreed to circumvent the certainty of the Recap through a backdoor standardised term.


This case serves as a useful reminder to New Zealand companies contracting internationally and forming contracts by email recap that:

  • Express provisions need to be clear and unambiguous.
  • If standardised terms are incorporated, these should be checked against the express provisions to avoid inconsistency, or it is made clear which terms are to prevail.
  • The agreement when viewed holistically can be sensibly read together.

Courts and arbitral tribunals will generally try to construe competing clauses to have a consistent interpretation where possible.  However, where this cannot be achieved, terms that have been specifically agreed will be preferred to standardised terms that have been incorporated. 

If you have any questions about this case, or trade terms generally, please get in touch with our Trade and Commodities Team or your usual contact at Hesketh Henry.

Disclaimer:  The information contained in this article is current at the date of publishing and is of a general nature.  It should be used as a guide only and not as a substitute for obtaining legal advice.  Specific legal advice should be sought where required.

Do you need expert legal advice?
Contact the expert team at Hesketh Henry.
Media contact - Kerry Browne
Please contact Kerry with any media enquiries and with any questions related to marketing or sponsorships on +64 9 375 8747 or via email.

Related Articles / Insights & Opinion

Covid-19 Risk Assessment – Vaccines only part of the solution
Vaccine mandates have been the “hot topic” in the news recently.  However, it has become clear that vaccines are not a silver bullet and relying on vaccination alone to address the risk of Covid-...
01.12.2021 Posted in COVID-19 & Employment & Health & Safety
Final changes to the overseas investment regime now in force
The Overseas Investment Amendment Act 2021 came into force on 5 July 2021.
24.11.2021 Posted in Business Advice & Foreign Investment & Property
Commerce Commission study announced for building supplies market
The Commerce Commission is set to undertake a market study into residential building supplies for major components of residential buildings 
24.11.2021 Posted in Business Advice & Construction & Regulatory
‘Tis the season … to comply with the Fair Trading Act
Retailers will be seeking to make the most of in-store trading reopening, particularly in Auckland.
23.11.2021 Posted in Business Advice & Regulatory
COVID-19 Protection Framework: Vaccination Certificates and Simplified Risk Assessment on its way
For some employers, Covid-19 vaccine certificates (CVCs) are required in order to operate within the Covid-19 Protection Framework (the Traffic Light System).  The scope of this requirement is slated...
23.11.2021 Posted in Business Advice & COVID-19 & Employment & Health & Safety
Retention funds:  where is the trust?
The importance of subcontractors scrutinising how retention funds are held, and how they are dealt with by insolvency practitioners, was highlighted in the recent High Court decision in McVeigh v Decm...
Review of Anti-Money Laundering law is underway
The Ministry of Justice is carrying out a statutory review of the Anti-Money Laundering and Countering Financing of Terrorism Act 2013 (Act) to consider: how it has performed since it was introduced ...
19.11.2021 Posted in Business Advice & Regulatory
Send us an enquiry
For expert legal advice, please complete the form below or call us on (09) 375 8700.
  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.