Where the harm is due in part to an act or omission of the aggrieved party or to another event for which that party bears the risk, the amount of damages shall be reduced to the extent that these factors have contributed to the harm, having regard to the conduct of each of the parties.
1. Contribution of the aggrieved party to the harm
In application of the general principle established by Article 7.1.2 which restricts the exercise of remedies where non-performance is in part due to the conduct of the aggrieved party, this Article limits the right to damages to the extent that the aggrieved party has in part contributed to the harm. It would indeed be unjust for such a party to obtain full compensation for harm for which it has itself been partly responsible.
2. Ways of contributing to the harm
The contribution of the aggrieved party to the harm may consist either in its own conduct or in an event for which it bears the risk. The conduct may take the form of an act (e.g. it gave a carrier a mistaken address) or an omission (e.g. it failed to give all the necessary instructtions to the constructor of the defective machinery). Most frequently such acts or omissions will result in the aggrieved party failing to perform one or another of its own contractual obligations; they may however equally consist in tortious conduct or non-performance of another contract. The external events for which the aggrieved party bears the risk may, among others, be acts or omissions of persons for whom it is responsible such as its servants or agents.
1. A, a franchisee bound by an “exclusivity” clause contained in the contract with B, acquires stock from C because B has required immediate payment despite the fact that the franchise agreement provides for payment at 90 days. B claims payment of the penalty stipulated for breach of the exclusivity clause. B will obtain only part of the sum due thereunder as it was B who provoked A’s non-performance.
2. A, a passenger on a liner effecting a luxury cruise, is injured when a lift fails to stop at the floor requested. B, the shipowner, is held liable for the consequences of A’s injury and seeks recourse against C, the company which had checked the lifts before the liner’s departure. It is proved that the accident would have been avoided if the floor had been better lit. Since this was B’s responsibility, B will not obtain full recovery from C.
3. Apportionment of contribution to the harm
The conduct of the aggrieved party or the external events as to which it bears the risk may have made it absolutely impossible for the non-performing party to perform. If the requirements of Article 7.1.7 (Force majeure) are satisfied, the non-performing party is totally exonerated from liability.
Otherwise, the exoneration will be partial, depending on the extent to which the aggrieved party contributed to the harm. The determination of each party’s contribution to the harm may well prove to be difficult and will to a large degree depend upon the exercise of judicial discretion. In order to give some guidance to the court this Article provides that the court shall have regard to the respective behaviour of the parties. The more serious a party’s failing, the greater will be its contribution to the harm.
3. The facts are the same as in Illustration 1. Since it was B who was the first not to observe the terms of the contract, B is deemed to have caused A’s failure to respect the exclusivity clause. B may only recover 25% of the amount stipulated in the penalty clause.
4. The facts are the same as in Illustration 2. Since the failings of B and C seem to be equivalent, B can only recover from C 50% of the compensation it had to pay A.
4. Contribution to harm and mitigation of harm
This Article must be read in conjunction with the following Article on mitigation of harm (see Article 7.4.8). While this Article is concerned with the conduct of the aggrieved party in regard to the cause of the initial harm, Article 7.4.8 relates to that party’s conduct subsequent thereto.