Abusive penalty clauses and nullity in contracts between companies
Freedom of contract and its limits in business-to-business contracting: abusive penalty clauses
In negotiations between companies, the principle of freedom of contract recognised in Article 1255 of the Spanish Civil Code prevails, allowing the contracting parties to freely determine the content of the contract provided that it is not contrary to the law, morality or public policy, as well as to the principles of good faith and contractual balance developed in Articles 7 and 1258 of the Civil Code, which require loyalty and consistency in the performance and interpretation of the contract.
Statutory limits on penalty clauses in commercial matters
In commercial matters, Article 61 of the Spanish Commercial Code expressly provides for the possibility of moderating a penalty where it is manifestly excessive, thereby constituting a statutory limit intended to prevent the application of disproportionate financial sanctions. This provision is complemented by Article 1154 of the Civil Code, which empowers the court to equitably reduce the agreed penalty where the obligation has been partially performed or where the sanction exceeds the damage caused. Consequently, there is no unlimited margin to impose penalties without regard to proportionality.
Supreme Court Doctrine on disproportionate penalty clauses
The case law of the Spanish Supreme Court has extensively developed these limits. A landmark judgment is Supreme Court Ruling (STS) 530/2016 of 13 September 2005, which held that the purpose of a penalty clause cannot be punitive but compensatory in nature, and that its moderation is imperative where it results in unjust enrichment of the benefiting party.
Control of penalty clauses in contracts containing standard terms and conditions
In the context of pre-formulated standard terms and conditions, control is exercised through Law 7/1998 of 13 April on General Contracting Conditions, Articles 5 and 7 of which require the contractual content to be transparent, clear and accessible. Although its substantive unfairness regime is primarily directed at consumer contracts, the Supreme Court has acknowledged its applicability in contracts between entrepreneurs for the purpose of incorporation control, as reflected in the judgment of 9 May 2013 when interpreting the requirements of transparency and the adhering party’s real knowledge. Accordingly, a surprising or unclear penalty clause may be deemed not to have been incorporated even in B2B contracts.
Sector-specific regulations and additional controls in commercial contracting
Furthermore, there are sector-specific regulations that reinforce this approach. Law 3/2004 on combating late payment in commercial transactions establishes limits on disproportionate interest and penalties in transactions between companies, recognising that commercial dealings are not entirely exempt from controls against abusive practices. Likewise, in sectors such as road transport or franchising, both legislation and case law have accepted scrutiny of those stipulations which seriously disturb contractual balance or impose sanctions contrary to good faith.
Judicial criteria for annulment or moderation of disproportionate penalty clauses
Judicial practice confirms that courts do not confine themselves to examining the formal validity of a penalty clause, but also assess its proportionality and coherence with the damage suffered. Penalties that multiply the value of the contract for minor breaches, require full payment upon early termination without actual loss, or unilaterally attribute the power to modify conditions, have been reduced or annulled by the courts where their enforcement leads to outcomes contrary to contractual equilibrium. These decisions reinforce the notion that freedom of contract cannot operate as an instrument of abuse, even in relations between companies.
B2B contracting and penalty clauses: practical conclusions
Accordingly, B2B contracting is not an area free from legal oversight. The combined application of Article 1154 of the Civil Code, Article 61 of the Commercial Code, the good faith principles enshrined in Article 7 of the Civil Code, the incorporation control mechanisms of the General Contracting Conditions Act, and the consolidated case law of the Supreme Court, forms a system that allows disproportionate penalty clauses to be moderated or annulled, particularly where they lead to unjust enrichment, take the adhering party by surprise, or are imposed without transparency.
Thus, good faith, proportionality and transparency are not merely doctrinal criteria but parameters of contractual validity. Companies drafting or negotiating contracts must assume that the design of proportionate, justified and clear penalty clauses not only reduces the risk of litigation but also ensures the legal robustness of their agreements and prevents contractual freedom from becoming a source of abuse.
Do you need advice? Access our area related to abusive penalty clauses and nullity in contracts between companies:
