Definition Of A Back To Back Agreement

A back-to-back contract can relate to many different things, but it is the most used in the construction sector, in this case it means that the main contractor requires its subcontractors to comply with the initial contractual conditions. In this use, the terms of a “back-to-back” contract can also be referred to as “inserted by reference” terms (unlike the newly designed terms). Back-to-Back refers to everything, for example. B a document in which all functions reflect the following document. For example, when we open a credit, it has the same functions as the previous one. In other words, this whole document reflects what we have achieved previously. Commercial intermediaries use a back-to-back document to open a second credit in favor of a seller (supplier). In addition, in the case of long and detailed basic contractual specifications (often in the form of employer requirements), it can be a very complex and, indeed, controversial task to separate the obligations that are relevant for each subcontract. The main concern of subcontractors is that they accidentally take the risk of inappropriate questions given the scale and scale of their subcontracting. In everyday language, “back-to-back” means that each document contains the same conditions and characteristics as the next contract. You can open a registration letter that contains the same items as the previous one. In residential construction, the term could refer to houses built side by side. The main contractor does this by winning back-to-back contracts with subcontractors.

This ensures that the prime contractor is not responsible for all obligations to the employer, that subcontractors have enforceable rights, and that schedules are coordinated throughout the supply chain. The court stated that, in the absence of particular commercial use, natural meaning is taught by “for the delivery/installation of. work on a back-to-back payment basis…. It was just that Tim Lee would be paid if Super King had received the payment from his superior. This was only a single payment obligation, namely the obligation to pay upon receipt of payments. There was no indication, either in the linguistic context or in the actual context, that the individual obligation should be divided into parts – one party in claim and the other party in time.