The last shot fired may not hit the target | Davis Blank Furniss Solicitors

A (so-called) “battle of the forms” arises where two parties enter into negotiations with the intention of entering into a contract and each party attempts to conclude the contract on their own standard terms and conditions.

The scenario often arises in negotiations between commercial suppliers and buyers of goods.

In every case, in order to determine which parties terms and conditions apply, you need to analyse the exchanges between the parties and determine when the contract was formed.

Often, the “last shot” doctrine applies: the terms and conditions which prevail to govern the parties’ rights and obligations under the contract are generally those which were sent last and received without objection.

The recent decision in TRW v Panasonic is an interesting example of a case where the “last shot” doctrine did not apply.

In that case, Panasonic sought to rely on their “customer file” (signed by a representative of TRW) which contained an acknowledgment that TRW had received Panasonic’s general conditions. The general conditions expressly provided that any dealings between the parties would be governed exclusively by Panasonic’s standard terms and conditions and would be subject to German law. The terms further excluded any contrary conditions of the buyer not expressly agreed to in writing by Panasonic.  TRW claimed that those terms and conditions did not relate to the contracts in dispute and claimed that their own terms and conditions were incorporated into the contract by way of the purchase orders. TRW therefore relied on the “last shot” doctrine. TRW argued that Panasonic had agreed to the terms and conditions when they effected delivery of the goods, notwithstanding the fact Panasonic had not been required to sign them.

The court found that the contract was governed by the terms and conditions referenced in Panasonic’s “customer file”. The customer file, whilst not creating any obligation on the parties to buy or sell Panasonic products, did ensure that any future trade would be governed by Panasonic’s standard terms unless Panasonic agreed different terms in writing.

The court held that Panasonic had protected itself from the “last shot” doctrine by incorporating a provision stating, “conditions of the buyer diverging from our terms and conditions shall not be valid even if we effected delivery”. The court said that the only way TRW could have incorporated their terms into the contract, would have been to have Panasonic agree to them in writing prior to purchasing the goods. It found that “[TRW’s] last shot missed the target”.

Does all of this really matter? Each case is dependent on its own particular facts. The Panasonic case, however, shows the potential benefit of treating the above matters seriously. The English court found that the claim by TRW had to be dealt with under German Law by the Germany court.  It mattered to TRW…

If you would like further information or would like to discuss a potential issue that you are facing, please contact me here. You can also read more about our  business dispute resolution services here.


Read what our clients have to say...

View All

Excellent experience start to finish – always very responsive to any queries and the turnaround on the property I was buying was very quick, even in the busy time leading up to stamp duty deadline. Jenny was always very helpful and went above and beyond to close on a short timescale.

Ben Armitage

“Very approachable, practical solutions to problems, but most of all very responsive which I personally think is very important because if you need help, you need it quickly, or at least to know someone is looking at it for you”.

Joanne Rowe, Finance Director, Greater Manchester Chamber

“Always able to contact, very approachable, friendly and professional”

Nives Feely, JAM Recruitment

“I believe I have been able to establish a professional working relationship with everyone I have come into contact. Importantly, I sense the relationships which have been established give me the confidence that I can make contact with Davis Blank Furniss at any time and on any matter. I would also like to express my thanks to the very impressive “gatekeepers” who work in reception, not only for making me very welcome, but also for their professionalism”

Bill Pryke, CEO, Chartered Institution of Civil Engineering Surveyors

“Thank you for your efficient and friendly help throughout this process. We have had it easy but your approach has been part of that”.

Robert Amsbury (Conveyancing Client)

“I would like to take this opportunity to thank you personally for the ongoing support and assistance the firm has offered to our parents over the years. I hope also that we may be able to call on you if necessary in the future.”

Valerie Fisher (Probate Client)

“Jo always provides great service, understands our needs and delivers on her promises. Our needs are relatively simple but the complexity arises out of the volume of work and short time frames, Jo always delivers.”

Peter Fernandez, Corporate Director at Royal Bank of Scotland

“A big thank you to all who dealt with my wife’s claim… We would not hesitate to recommend Davis Blank Furniss to anyone that may be in a situation like we have been…”

Anon (Personal Injury client)

“Before putting my case in Kirsty (Morbey)’s capable hands I’ve met a couple of other solicitors. None of them listen to me as intently as Kirsty and showed me as much empathy and understanding as she did. Simultaneously she was able to look at my case from legal perspective, explain all the options and follow each of our meetings with written summary of the discussed matters (in timely manner). Her advice was invaluable and led me to successfully ending the case matter (hopeful for good). I’m forever grateful for he work and would definitely recommend her to anyone looking for reliable, knowledgeable and committed solicitor”.

Anon (Family client)
5 star service

Our Manchester office is rated 5 stars on Google