If it is important to your business that the contract is performed by the party with whom you are entering into a contract, it is important to include this clause in the transaction documentation. If your business is sold, if you want to subcontract some or all of its obligations under a contract, or if it wants to transfer a contract to a related company or subsidiary, it is important not to include or accept a clause preventing an assignment or subcontracting. The invalidity of a given clause, provision or agreement does not entail the total or partial invalidation of the rest of that plan, but this remainder is and remains as complete in all respects as the law permits. This provision would be included in one of the above-mentioned provisions, either preventing the assignment or authorizing it with the agreement. This reservation to these provisions allows the agreement to be transferred without the agreement of the other party if the transfer to a related enterprise (generally defined as an enterprise holding at least 50% of the same owners or shareholders), to a subsidiary or to an entity that purchases the enterprise with which the contract is concluded. 8. Force Majeure Neither Party shall be liable for any delays or omissions in the performance of any part of this Agreement, to the extent that such delay or failure is caused by fire, flood, explosion, war, embargo, governmental requirements, civil or military authority, force majeure or other similar causes beyond its control and without the fault or negligence of the late or necessary Party. The party concerned will notify the other party in writing within ten (10) days of the commencement of such cause that would affect its performance. However, if the performance of a party is delayed by more than thirty (30) days from the date on which the other party receives notification in accordance with this paragraph, the non-affected party has the right to terminate this agreement without any liability to the other party.
The Commercial Court responded to the applicant`s assertion that the parties intended to conclude a binding contract and was therefore endeavouring to implement the option agreement. It stated, inter alia, that the option agreement was part of a `package` of contracts and that the consideration for the grant of the options by the defendant was also paid to the subsidiaries of the applicant which concluded the shipbuilding contracts. . . .