CONTRACT LAW — Terms of Contract — Implied Terms — Court Cannot Read a Term for Interest into a Written Contract Where None Exists
Ratio Decidendi
Per Tabai, JSC, in A.G. Ferrero & Co. Ltd v. Henkel Chemicals Nig. Ltd (2011) NLC-123-160-2003(SC) at p. 9; Paras A–B:
"There is no provision, express or implied, in Exhibit 1, the contract agreement, leading to the inference that in the event of the Respondent's default in paying the sum contained in a certificate of payment within the stipulated time, it would be liable to pay interest on the sum... In the absence of any specific provision for the payment of interest in the contract agreement, the court cannot award interest."
Explanation / Scope
This principle establishes that where a written contract contains no express or implied provision for the payment of interest on default, the court cannot read such a term into the contract or award interest. The principle applies in contract claims involving default. It ensures that the court respects the terms agreed by the parties. The principle reflects the rule against implying terms where none exist. It prevents courts from rewriting contracts. The court must confine itself to the terms agreed. The principle provides guidance on the award of interest in contract claims.