Contract clause

Interpreting Termination for Convenience Clauses: A.L. Prime Energy Consultant, Inc. v. MBTA

In A.L. Prime Energy Consultant, Inc. v. Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority (MBTA), the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court issued an unambiguous decision on May 2, 2018, that a termination for convenience clause in a state or municipal contract will be interpreted and enforced according to the plain meaning of the contract under Massachusetts general contract principles and rejected the application of Federal standards for construction of the contract. By doing so, the Court allowed to stand the MBTA’s right to terminate its procurement contract for diesel fuel with A.L. Prime in order to obtain lower priced fuel under a Statewide procurement.

In July 2015, the MBTA awarded Prime the contract to provide for ultra low sulfur diesel fuel. The contract (attached to the invitation for bids) included a termination for convenience clause permitting the MBTA to terminate the contract “in its sole discretion” “at any time for its convenience and/or for any reason” upon 30 days’ notice. That same year, the Commonwealth, unrelatedly, obtained bids and entered into a contract for Statewide supply of the same type of diesel fuel. The MBTA eventually terminated the Prime contract and used the Statewide contract to obtain fuel at lower cost under the termination for convenience provisions.

Prime challenged the MBTA’s right to terminate for convenience in order to obtain cost savings, asserting claims for breach of contract and breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing.

As there is a more established body of Federal law interpreting termination for convenience clauses, some state courts have applied Federal law in interpreting state termination for convenience clauses. Whether to impose the Federal standard or the Massachusetts general contract provisions to a termination for convenience in a state or municipal contract is a matter of first impression in Massachusetts. Under Federal law, a termination for convenience clause cannot be invoked in bad faith and cancelling a contract to procure the same product or service at a lower cost can constitute bad faith. Thus, in Prime v. MBTA, applying Federal law to interpret the termination for convenience clause could result in a conclusion that the MBTA acted in bad faith in terminating the contract, with resulting damages for lost profits rather than a claim limited to recovery of the contractor’s sunk costs as contemplated by the contract.

The Court instead interpreted the contract under general Massachusetts principles of contract law and, in upholding the effectiveness of the MBTA’s termination for convenience, the Court looked at all of the words of the clause: that the right to terminate could be exercised in MBTA’s “sole discretion” and for “its convenience and/or for any reason” distinguishing that broad right from the Federal standard allowing termination in the “Government’s interest.”

The decision provides a clear statement that a termination for convenience clause in a contract with a state or municipal agency or authority will be construed under Massachusetts general contract principles of construction, and if properly worded, will be effective to terminate a contract where the reason for such termination is to obtain cost savings from an alternate contracting source. The Court did not address and left for another day the question of whether a public entity may terminate a contract for convenience in order to rebid the requirement in search of a lower cost alternative.

About the Authors

Stay Connected

Partner

Paul C. Bauer

Paul Bauer, Real Estate & Environmental Practice Area Leader, is a lawyer representing businesses, individuals and institutions throughout Massachusetts in sophisticated transactions with an emphasis on big real estate projects and challenging commercial law issues. Paul regularly advises developers, mortgage lenders, tenants and property owners across various industry sectors in complex development, acquisition, financing, business planning and leasing transactions – both public and private – including the biggest lease in the history of Boston at the time.

Stay Connected

More Posts by Author ›

Stay Connected

Partner

Mary T. Feeney

Mary Feeney is a seasoned business lawyer and advisor focused on helping clients in Massachusetts and the throughout the U.S. in the construction, higher education and real estate sectors.  Clients seek Mary’s problem-solving acumen for a wide range of business, non-profit and institutional issues and concerns, including:

  • Design and construction services
  • Real estate development and land use
  • General representation of colleges, universities and secondary schools
  • Commercial and retail leasing and
  • Facilities-related regulatory, code and licensing matters
Stay Connected

More Posts by Author ›

About the Authors

Stay Connected

Partner

Paul C. Bauer

Paul Bauer, Real Estate & Environmental Practice Area Leader, is a lawyer representing businesses, individuals and institutions throughout Massachusetts in sophisticated transactions with an emphasis on big real estate projects and challenging commercial law issues. Paul regularly advises developers, mortgage lenders, tenants and property owners across various industry sectors in complex development, acquisition, financing, business planning and leasing transactions – both public and private – including the biggest lease in the history of Boston at the time.

Stay Connected

More Posts by Author ›

Stay Connected

Partner

Mary T. Feeney

Mary Feeney is a seasoned business lawyer and advisor focused on helping clients in Massachusetts and the throughout the U.S. in the construction, higher education and real estate sectors.  Clients seek Mary’s problem-solving acumen for a wide range of business, non-profit and institutional issues and concerns, including:

  • Design and construction services
  • Real estate development and land use
  • General representation of colleges, universities and secondary schools
  • Commercial and retail leasing and
  • Facilities-related regulatory, code and licensing matters
Stay Connected

More Posts by Author ›

View All People ›

To get in touch, please call us at 508-791-3511 or fill out the form below. Fields in orange are required.

Stay Current

Subscribe to Bowditch’s monthly updates, alerts, insider news, and events.

Subscribe to All

An email confirmation will be sent upon submitting this form.