GAFTA Case Law: Clarifying Anticipatory Breach & Advance Payment Refundability

Citation: [2024] EWHC 479 (Comm)
Judgment on


The case of Ayhan Sezer Yag Ve Gida Endustrisi Ticaret Limited Sirket v Agroinvest SA [2024] EWHC 479 (Comm) addresses critical issues surrounding the date of default and the nature of an advance payment in the context of a commercial contract governed by Grain and Feed Trade Association (GAFTA) standard form. The judgment elucidates the principles of anticipatory breach and the interpretation of contract clauses, particularly with respect to the recovery of advance payments.

Key Facts

In this case, the claim arose from a GAFTA arbitration award. The claimant, Ayhan Sezer Yag Ve Gida Endustrisi Ticaret Limited Sirket, entered into a contract with the defendant, Agroinvest SA, for the sale of rape meal and soybean meal. A dispute emerged over the date of default for calculating damages and the refundability of an advance payment made by the claimant following the claimant’s repudiatory breach. The claimant’s breach was acknowledged, but whether the advance payment was refundable in the event of the claimant’s breach remained in dispute. The London Circuit Commercial Court was tasked with analyzing and determining these focal points of contention.

Several legal principles played crucial roles in shaping the outcome of this case:

  1. Anticipatory Breach and Date of Default: The court had to determine whether the “date of default” refers to the date of an anticipatory repudiatory breach or the date on which the breach was accepted. The court turned to the judgments in Toprak v Finagrain Compagnie Commerciale Agricole et Financiere SA [1979] and Thai Maparn Trading Co Ltd v Louis Dreyfus Commodities Asia Pte Ltd [2011] for guidance. From these authorities, it was deduced that “date of default” means the date on which the breach occurred.

  2. Nature of Advance Payments in Contracts: The court analyzed the distinction between payments characterized as “deposits” and “advance payments” in the context of contractual performance security. The judgment referred to Howe v Smith (1884) and Comdel Commodities Ltd v Siporex Trade SA [1997], which emphasized clear language in contracts when interpreting whether payments were refundable.

  3. Interpretation of Contractual Terms: The judgment reiterated that the interpretation of contractual terms is a matter of law, following the principles summarized in the cases of Arnold v Britton [2015] and Wood v Capita Insurance Services [2017]. The emphasis was placed on understanding the parties’ intentions using the contractual language, the context, and commercial common sense.


The court decided:

  1. The “date of default” is the date of the repudiatory breach (27 April 2018), not the date of acceptance of the breach, overturning the Board’s finding of 7 May 2018.

  2. The advance payment made by the claimant was refundable, concluding that the payment served as security for performance and could not be retained by the defendant in the absence of demonstrated losses resulting from the breach. Thus, the GAFTA Board erred in its interpretation that termed the advance payment as non-refundable.


The judgment offers insightful guidance on the critical issues of anticipatory breach and advance payments in commercial contracts. Importantly, it underscores the necessity of clear contractual drafting, particularly in standard-form contracts like GAFTA, to avoid ambiguity over the parties’ intentions. The decision also reaffirms that the measure of losses in cases of anticipatory breach should be calculated at the date of breach itself rather than the date of acceptance of the breach, aligning with established legal principles for consistency and predictability.

Related Summaries