NEC3 ECC: Termination for convenience

The Contract has a ‘Z’ clause titled Termination for Convenience which states “The Employer may terminate the contract at any time for a reason not stated in the Contract (Termination for Convenience) by giving notice in accordance with clause 90.1”.

Do you think this could be seen as an unfair clause that could be challenged in court by a Contractor or is it simply that it is a clause included in a contract which the Contractor has signed up to and is legally bound by no matter how it could be implemented by the Employer? A good example of why termination for convenience would be used in this case is that following request and submission of the Contractor’s revised programme and price going forward, further to scope change and to take the contract into its second phase, that submission is deemed to be significantly over stated with little or no hope in agreeing any reduction so a sensible target price and incentive mechanism can be re-set.

Appreciate it’s hard to decide without all the facts so I’ve given as much relevant information as I can but could provide more if you have other questions.

Not really sure why this even needs a Z clause as under clause 90.2 the Employer can always terminate for any reason (whilst the Contractor can only do it for a reason stated in the contract). Therefore no I would not consider this to be an unfair clause.

Apologies, appreciate the answer and I meant to respond. The reason the Z clause is in our contract is because it was felt, I believe, that clause 90.2 which says “The Employer may terminate for any reason” as you state, appears to contradict clause 91.1 which states specific reasons why either Party can terminate. So I think our Employer is making it clear that He can terminate “for convenience” i.e. anything at all.
I wondered if you could clarify this.