Contracts are meant to offer certainty, yet in the real world, even the most meticulously drafted ones can unravel under pressure. The recent Seatrium case, involving the termination of a US$475 million offshore wind vessel contract, highlights how quickly a commercial success story can turn into a liability headline.
Behind every contract termination of this scale lies a tangle of performance obligations, shifting project conditions, and competing commercial interests. It’s rarely about one bad clause.
When projects are outsourced across multiple vendors or jurisdictions, the chain of accountability becomes stretched. One weak link, delay, a variation order dispute, or an untested assumption, can trigger a domino effect. Suddenly, what looked like a sound deal becomes a multi-million-dollar exposure.
In such cases, the contract doesn’t just define rights, it determines survival.
Who bears the cost of termination?
How do force majeure or default clauses actually operate when the stakes are this high?
And what happens when commercial pressures push teams to proceed, even when red flags are visible?
This isn’t just a legal issue. It’s a governance issue, and a reminder that contract oversight is as strategic as it is technical.
Led by Nadia Moynihan, an experienced legal practitioner with regional insight and hands-on expertise, the session draws on her cross-border practice to deliver practical, real-world insights into contract law, risk allocation, and the governance of outsourcing and procurement relationships.
Comments