Corporate law Brisbane

Are contract recitals legally binding?

by

reviewed by

Malcolm Burrows

Recitals, also known as the “preamble” or “details” clauses (Recitals) are introductory statements at the start of a contract that provide context, background or reasons for the terms and conditions that follow.  They have been historically used by the Courts to aid in the interpretation of ambiguous terms and are capable of including essential provisions and directives that are legally binding and enforceable (Operative Provisions).[1]

Formal definition of Recitals

The LexisNexis Concise Australian Legal Dictionary 4th edition defines a “recital” as:

An introductory part of a document, such as a deed or an award, which states the facts and circumstances relevant to the making of the document, to explain or give context to its contents.”[2]

Recitals are typically found after the parties’ section and contain a series of sentences that when clearly drafted can provide:

  • context to the contract;
  • explanation of intent; and
  • guidance on interpretation.

They have historically been used by the Courts as a guide to the intention and objectives of the parties entering into the contract by helping to interpret ambiguous Operative Provisions.[3]

Guidance by the Courts about Recitals?

In Franklins Pty Ltd v Metcash Trading Ltd [2009] NSWCA 407, Justice Campbell outlined a series of principles from historical English law that he determined constituted a guideline as to how Recitals can be used to assist with the construction of an operative provision:[4]

  • the Recitals are a part of the agreement, and can be used as an aid to construction of an operative provision in an agreement;[5]
  • nevertheless, there is a distinction between the operative terms of a contract and the Recitals. Although the Recitals can assist in the construction of a contract, they are not themselves operative terms;[6]
  • there is a great deal of authority from the 19th and early 20th century to the effect that the manner in which the recital can be used depends upon whether either the recital or the operative provision is “ambiguous”;[7]
  • there are also more recent authorities which state that Recitals can provide a means of proving background facts that are themselves legitimate aids to construction;[8] and
  • they can be at the least an admission by the party to the deed of the truth of the matter stated, under the general law concerning evidence. In some circumstances they could give rise to an estoppel by deed, or an estoppel by convention, that prevented a party to the document asserting the contrary of the fact stated in the recital.[9]

Are the Recitals contractually binding?

While the Recitals can aid in interpreting a contract, it’s important to note that they aren’t binding like operative terms.  They serve to provide context, rather than impose legal obligations and act as a form of admissible evidence that can be used to assist in the interpretation of the contract if the language of the Operative Provisions is ambiguous or susceptible of more than one meaning.[10]

It’s important to ensure that Recitals, although not legally binding, are drafted with precision and clarity.  Careful drafting helps to avoid ambiguity and potential misinterpretations, ensuring that the Recitals serve their intended purpose as a guide to understanding the agreement without introducing unnecessary risks or complications.

Links and further references

Cases

Caboche v Ramsay [1993] FCA 611

Codelfa Construction Pty Ltd v State Rail Authority of NSW (1982) 149 CLR 337

Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Raphael, 133 F.2d 442 (9th Cir. 1943)

Cousens v Grayridge Pty Ltd [2000] VSCA 96

Eslea Holdings Ltd v Butts (1986) 6 NSWLR 175

Ex parte Dawes, In re Moon (1886) 17 QBD 275

Franklins Pty Ltd v Metcash Trading Ltd (2009) NSWLR 603

Greer v Kettle [1938] AC 156

In re Michell’s Trusts (1878) 9 Ch D 5

Inland Revenue Commissioners v Raphael [1935] AC 96

Lee v Alexander (1883) 8 App Cas 853

Orr v Mitchell [1893] AC 238

Peppers Hotel Management Pty Ltd v Hotel Capital Partners Ltd [2004] NSWCA 11

Rutter (Inspector of Taxes) v Charles Sharpe & Co Ltd [1979] 1 WLR 1429

Square Mile Partnership Limited v Fitzmaurice McCall Limited [2006] EWCA Civ 1690

Young v Smith (1865) LR 1 Eq 180

Further information about commercial contracts

If you need advice on how to draft effective Recital clauses or any commercial contract, contact us for a confidential and obligation-free discussion:

[1] Lee v Alexander (1883) 8 App Cas 853 [870]; Orr v Mitchell [1893] AC 238 [252]-[254]; Inland Revenue Commissioners v Raphael [1935] AC 96 [143].

[2] LexisNexis, LexisNexis Concise Australian Legal Dictionary (4th ed, LexisNexis Butterworths, 2011) 495.

[3] Orr v Mitchell [1893] Ac 238.

[4] Franklins Pty Ltd v Metcash Trading Ltd (2009) NSWLR 603 [380].

[5] Lee v Alexander (1883) 8 App Cas 853 [870]; Orr v Mitchell [1893] AC 238 [252]-[254]; Inland Revenue Commissioners v Raphael [1935] AC 96 [143].

[6] Young v Smith (1865) LR 1 Eq 180 [183];Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Raphael, 133 F.2d 442 (9th Cir. 1943)[135], [144].

[7] Ex parte Dawes, In re Moon (1886) 17 QBD 275 [286]; In re Michell’s Trusts (1878) 9 Ch D 5 [9]; Young v Smith (1865) LR 1 Eq [183]-[184]; Orr v Mitchell [1893] AC 238 [254]; Morrison & Goolden, Norton on Deeds, 2nd ed (1928) Sweet & Maxwell, p 197 ff.

[8] Rutter (Inspector of Taxes) v Charles Sharpe & Co Ltd [1979] 1 WLR 1429 [1433]; Peppers Hotel Management Pty Ltd v Hotel Capital Partners Ltd [2004] NSWCA 114 [77]-[78];Square Mile Partnership Limited v Fitzmaurice McCall Limited [2006] EWCA Civ 1690 [52].

[9] Greer v Kettle [1938] AC 156 [170]-[171]; Cousens v Grayridge Pty Ltd [2000] VSCA 96 [57];Caboche v Ramsay [1993] FCA 611; Eslea Holdings Ltd v Butts (1986) 6 NSWLR 175 [188].

[10] Codelfa Construction Pty Ltd v State Rail Authority of NSW (1982) 149 CLR 337.


Related insights about commercial contracts

  • Director’s identification numbers to become a reality

    Director’s identification numbers to become a reality

    On 12 June 2020, the Treasury Laws Amendment (Registries Modernisation and Other Measures) Act 2020 introduced the requirement for all Australian company directors to have a “Director Identification Number” (DIN).  The DIN will become a single identifier for each director across all of their office holdings with the true identity of each director is verified…

    Read more …

  • What exactly is a section 293 direction?

    What exactly is a section 293 direction?

    There are several reasons why a shareholder may require financial information, primarily they are denied access to the ‘accounts’ so as to make informed decision about the company.  The Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) (Act) provides various mechanisms for shareholders to obtain financial and accounting information about a company, to allow them to access full and…

    Read more …

  • Director’s misuse of funds held to be oppressive

    Director’s misuse of funds held to be oppressive

    This article explores shareholder oppression, examining Section 232 of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) and Martin v Australian Squash Club Pty Ltd (1996) 14 ACLC 452, to understand the cumulative effect of individual acts.

    Read more …

  • What are sophisticated investors?

    What are sophisticated investors?

    This article provides an overview of the requirements for a person to be a sophisticated investor under the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) and the Corporations Regulations 2001 (Cth). It covers the definition of ‘person’, the Assets Test and Income Test, Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC) guidance, and the complexities of self-managed super funds.

    Read more …

  • e-Signatures – legally binding on companies?

    e-Signatures – legally binding on companies?

    E-signatures are becoming increasingly popular, but are they legally binding? Find out in this article, which examines the Adelaide Bank case and reveals the limitations of e-signatures when it comes to executing a deed. Click through to learn more.

    Read more …

  • Company funds must be used for company purposes

    Company funds must be used for company purposes

    This article examines the legal principles behind when it is permissible to use company funds, focusing on the case of Re D G Brims and Sons Pty Ltd (1995) 16 ASCR 559, which established that company funds must only be used for company purposes and not to pay for legal costs of proceedings for the…

    Read more …

  • The running account defence to unfair preference claims

    The running account defence to unfair preference claims

    Creditors who have been paid by a customer on credit may find themselves facing an Unfair Preference claim letter from a liquidator. Learn more about the defences available to creditors and how to protect yourself from repaying more than your fair share.

    Read more …

  • Unfair preferences & the set-off defence

    Unfair preferences & the set-off defence

    Under section 588FA of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) (Act) an unfair preference is defined as a transaction, such as payment of an outstanding debt, between a company and an unsecured creditor which results in that unsecured creditor receiving more than it would have received if it had to prove in the winding up of the…

    Read more …

  • Unfair preferences – the Doctrine of Ultimate Effect

    Unfair preferences – the Doctrine of Ultimate Effect

    Explore the Doctrine of Ultimate Effect, running account defence and more in this article by Dundas Lawyers. Learn how these concepts can provide a defence to an unfair preference claim under Section 588FA of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth).

    Read more …


Posted

in

,
Send this to a friend