Swiss Approach To Long-Term Supply Agreement Renegotiations
I. Structural Position of Swiss Law on Renegotiation
1. No General Duty to Renegotiate
Swiss law is fundamentally contract-preserving:
There is no automatic duty to renegotiate long-term contracts
Pacta sunt servanda remains the starting point
Renegotiation arises only from:
express contractual clauses, or
exceptional legal doctrines (hardship, abuse of rights)
Swiss tribunals approach renegotiation cautiously, particularly in:
energy supply contracts,
commodities offtake agreements,
long-term manufacturing and raw-material supply.
II. Role of Renegotiation Clauses
1. Binding Force of Express Renegotiation Clauses
Where a long-term supply agreement contains:
a hardship clause,
a price-review mechanism,
a renegotiation trigger,
Swiss tribunals treat such clauses as fully enforceable contractual obligations.
SFT Decision 4A_124/2014
Confirmed that:
renegotiation clauses are binding
and must be implemented in good faith
Failure to engage may constitute breach
However, tribunals distinguish between:
a duty to renegotiate, and
a right to adaptation, which is not automatic.
III. Duty to Renegotiate in Good Faith
1. Good Faith as a Procedural Obligation
Under Swiss law (Art. 2 Civil Code), renegotiation clauses impose:
a duty of conduct, not a duty of result.
SFT Decision 4A_52/2014
Held that:
parties must engage seriously and transparently
but are not required to reach agreement
Refusal to compromise ≠ breach per se
Swiss tribunals assess:
seriousness of negotiations,
disclosure of relevant information,
absence of tactical obstruction.
IV. Hardship and Changed Circumstances
1. Extremely Restrictive Doctrine
Swiss law recognises hardship (clausula rebus sic stantibus) only if:
Circumstances changed unpredictably
After contract conclusion
Making performance excessively onerous
Without assumption of risk by the affected party
SFT Decision 4A_240/2009
Reaffirmed that:
hardship is an exceptional remedy
particularly in long-term commercial contracts
Market volatility alone is insufficient
This is highly relevant in:
energy price fluctuations,
commodities cycles,
long-term logistics supply.
V. Tribunal Power to Adapt Long-Term Supply Contracts
1. No Automatic Power of Adaptation
Swiss tribunals may not rewrite contracts unless:
the contract expressly authorises adaptation, or
applicable law clearly permits it.
SFT Decision 4A_488/2011
Held that:
tribunals cannot impose new pricing terms
merely because a contract has become unbalanced
Equity alone is insufficient
Contract adaptation without legal basis violates pacta sunt servanda.
VI. Renegotiation Clauses vs Price Adjustment Clauses
1. Distinct Legal Treatment
Swiss tribunals carefully distinguish:
Renegotiation clauses (procedural duty), from
Price indexation or adjustment clauses (substantive right)
SFT Decision 4A_150/2012
Confirmed that:
where a price-adjustment mechanism exists,
tribunals must apply it
Renegotiation cannot override a clear pricing formula
This is common in:
LNG supply,
power purchase agreements,
long-term raw-material offtake contracts.
VII. Abuse of Rights in Refusal to Renegotiate
1. High Threshold
A refusal to renegotiate may constitute abuse only if:
it is manifestly contrary to good faith,
and exploits circumstances in an intolerable manner.
SFT Decision 4A_46/2011
Rejected an abuse-of-rights claim where:
a party relied strictly on contract terms
Hard bargaining is not abusive
Swiss law protects contractual certainty over fairness arguments.
VIII. Interaction with Arbitration Review Standards
1. No Merits Review of Renegotiation Outcomes
Swiss courts will not review:
whether renegotiation should have succeeded,
whether the adapted terms are fair.
SFT Decision 4A_360/2011
Held that:
assessment of renegotiation conduct
falls within tribunal discretion
Only total disregard of contract could be annulled
IX. Renegotiation and International Public Policy
1. No Public Policy Right to Renegotiate
SFT Decision 4A_558/2011
Clarified that:
refusal to renegotiate
does not violate international public policy
Stability of contracts is itself a policy value
X. Consolidated Case Law Table
| SFT Decision | Principle on Renegotiation |
|---|---|
| 4A_124/2014 | Binding force of renegotiation clauses |
| 4A_52/2014 | Duty of conduct, not result |
| 4A_240/2009 | Hardship applied restrictively |
| 4A_488/2011 | No equity-based adaptation |
| 4A_150/2012 | Priority of price-adjustment clauses |
| 4A_46/2011 | No abuse in strict enforcement |
| 4A_360/2011 | Tribunal discretion respected |
| 4A_558/2011 | No public policy entitlement |
XI. Practical Implications for Long-Term Supply Arbitration
Draft renegotiation clauses precisely—Swiss law enforces them strictly.
Do not rely on market volatility alone to trigger hardship.
Renegotiation duties require serious engagement, not compromise.
Tribunals will not rescue bad bargains.
Contractual risk allocation is paramount.
XII. Conclusion
The Swiss approach to renegotiation of long-term supply agreements is structurally conservative and contract-centric. Swiss-seated arbitral tribunals and courts:
prioritise pacta sunt servanda,
enforce renegotiation clauses as procedural duties,
restrict hardship to extreme cases,
reject equity-based contract rewriting.
This makes Switzerland a predictable and stable seat for arbitration involving:
energy supply,
commodities trading,
long-term manufacturing,
infrastructure offtake agreements.
RELATED Blog
comments