Penalty Clause and Permit Freeze on a Beirut Fit-Out
Levant Horizon SAL, a Beirut developer, engaged Batiment SARL to fit out a 1,200 m² office in Achrafieh for USD 480,000, completion 1 June 2024. The contract contains a liquidated-damages clause of USD 2,500 per day, capped at 12% of the price, and requires written notice of delay within seven days. In April, Beirut Municipality suspended all fit-out permits after a neighbouring building collapse. Batiment's project manager told the developer's site engineer orally that work would stop; no written notice followed. Work resumed after 70 days. Levant terminated on 15 August, engaged a replacement at USD 60,000 extra, withheld USD 84,000 and called the performance bond. Batiment invokes force majeure and says the penalty is excessive; Levant says the notice clause is a condition precedent and the contractor bore the permit risk. The parties agree Lebanese law governs.
1. Batiment claims force majeure and, alternatively, that its late notice should be excused. How should a Lebanese court analyse these two defences?
Read the worked answer
Issue. Whether the 70-day permit suspension excuses delay, and whether the missed written notice destroys the claim.
Force majeure. Under Lebanese obligations law, force majeure requires an external, unforeseeable and irresistible event that makes performance impossible, not merely more expensive. A municipal permit freeze following a building collapse can qualify if it was not caused by Batiment, was outside its control, and actually blocked the critical path. But the contract may allocate permit risk to the contractor; a court will read that allocation restrictively. If Batiment could have applied earlier or worked on permitted areas, the suspension is only partial.
Notice. The seven-day written notice is a contractual condition. Lebanese courts often treat such clauses seriously but may refuse forfeiture where the purpose - prompt information - was met and the developer knew orally. The site engineer's knowledge may be attributed to the developer, but that is not certain. The safer judicial approach is to excuse late notice only if there is no prejudice and no bad faith; otherwise the court may reduce the period of excused delay.
Conclusion. Batiment has a real but not automatic force-majeure defence; it should plead partial impossibility and prove causation. The notice breach is a risk, not necessarily fatal, and a court may admit the oral notice while limiting damages.
2. Assuming the delay is not excused, how should the court treat the USD 84,000 withholding, the 12% cap, and the USD 60,000 replacement cost?
Read the worked answer
Issue. Whether Levant can keep USD 84,000 and also claim replacement cost.
Penalty calculation. The clause produces 70 × USD 2,500 = USD 175,000, but the cap is 12% of USD 480,000 = USD 57,600. A liquidated-damages clause is a pre-estimate of loss, not a punitive fine. Lebanese courts may reduce a manifestly excessive penalty, especially where the obligation has been partly performed, but they will normally enforce a negotiated cap. Here the cap itself limits Levant to USD 57,600 unless the contract expressly permits actual damages above the cap.
Withholding. Levant retained USD 84,000, i.e. USD 26,400 more than the capped penalty. That excess lacks a contractual basis and must be returned, together with the performance bond, unless Levant proves separate recoverable loss.
Replacement cost. The USD 60,000 extra is actual loss. Levant cannot cumulate the penalty and the same loss if that would produce double compensation. It may elect the penalty or prove actual damages, but not both for the same delay. If it proves additional losses beyond the cap, the court may award them only if the clause is not exclusive.
Conclusion. Enter judgment for the capped penalty of USD 57,600; order restitution of USD 26,400 and release of the bond; allow the replacement cost only to the extent it is not double recovery and is properly proved.