Take-or-pay clause in Vietnamese law contracts
In Vietnam, take-or-pay arrangement is quite common in long term supply or off-take contracts especially those relating large scale infrastructure projects with foreign sponsors which require project financing. A take-or-pay arrangement is essentially an agreement whereby the buyer agrees to either: (1) take, and pay the contract price for, a minimum contract quantity of goods annually (the TOP Quantity); or (2) pay the applicable contract price for such TOP Quantity (TOP Liability) if it is not taken during the applicable year.
It is not clear under Vietnamese law if the payment of TOP Liability by the buyer under in a long term contract could be viewed as a penalty. This is because:
- Article 300 of the Commercial Law defines “penalty for breach” as a remedy whereby the aggrieved party requires the defaulting party to pay a penalty sum for breach of contract if so agreed in the contract; and
- One can argue that the buyer’s failure to take TOP Liabilities is a breach of the long term contract and therefore the TOP Liability is a penalty to be paid by the Buyer.
If the TOP Liability is characterised as a penalty for breach then it is subject to a limit of 8% of the value of obligations which are in breach. To avoid this potential characterisation, the parties to a long term contract with a take-or-pay arrangement may consider characterising TOP Liability payment as adjustment to the sale price or payment for reservation of supplying capacity of the supplier.
n a landmark reform for 2025, the Government of Vietnam has commenced a significant restructuring of its ministries. This major overhaul, approved by Resolution No 176 of the National Assembly dated 18 February 2025, aims to create a leaner, more efficient, and effective state apparatus to better support the nation's development.
The restructuring involves a series of complex mergers and transfers of functions between ministries. Based on the guiding decrees, the key changes include:
The Vietnamese government recently issued Decree 69/2025 (effective 19 May 2025), which amends Decree 01/2014 regarding foreign investor’s share purchase in Vietnamese credit institutions. Here are the main changes:
1. Scope of application
Decree 69/2025 clarifies that foreign-invested economic organisations (FIEOs) which are required to comply with investment conditions and procedures applicable to foreign investors must now follow the same rules (in Decree 01/2014 as amended by Decree 69/2025) applicable to foreign investors when buying shares in Vietnamese credit institutions.
Under the Investment Law 2020, these FIEOs refer to entities where foreign investors hold a majority of the charter capital (FIEO-F1). Notably, Decree 69/2025 does not explicitly state whether it applies to economic organisations majority-owned by an FIEO-F1, even though such economic organisations are also treated as foreign investors under the Investment Law 2020.
Decree 153/2020 (as amended), which governs private corporate bond offerings, creates ambiguity concerning the permissible use of bond proceeds, especially when parent companies aim to finance their subsidiaries.
Decree 153/2020 stipulates that bond proceeds can be used for implementing investment programs and projects, restructuring debts of the issuing enterprise itself, or for other purposes sanctioned by specialised laws. The ambiguity stems specifically from how the qualifier “of the issuing enterprise itself” applies to these permissible uses. This leads to two primary interpretations:
In criminal proceedings in Vietnam, civil claims (e.g., claims for compensation, repair of damaged property) often arise alongside criminal charges against criminals. The Criminal Procedure Code 2015 introduces the position of “civil claimants” (nguyên đơn dân sự) and “civil defendants” (bị đơn dân sự) to facilitate the handling of civil claims in Vietnamese criminal proceedings. However, other than creating these positions, the Criminal Procedure Code 2015 lacks detailed provisions on how these civil matters should be addressed in criminal proceedings. This legal gap, coupled with inconsistent judicial practices, makes the resolution of civil claims within criminal cases particularly complex and problematic. This post will explore the key challenges in resolving civil claims during criminal proceedings.
No clear procedures - Article 30 of the Criminal Procedure Code 2015 provides that civil matters in criminal cases are to be resolved during the adjudication of the criminal case. However, the Criminal Procedure Code 2015 provides no further instructions on the procedure for resolving civil claims within criminal proceedings. It remains unclear what procedural rules apply—whether the criminal court should follow its own process or adopt the procedures set out in the Civil Procedure Code 2015 to settle a civil claim during criminal proceedings. This uncertainty can lead to inconsistent judicial practices and procedural confusion.
Scope of civil claims - Article 64.1 of the Criminal Procedure Code 2015 defines a civil defendant as “an individual, agency, or organization that, as prescribed by law, is responsible for compensating for damages”. It appears from the definition of civil defendant that a civil claim during criminal proceedings only relates to the issue of compensation for damages. It is not clear whether other issues such as ownership of assets or return of illegal property could be covered in a civil claim during criminal proceedings. In addition, the court may also designate the person making or subjecting to a claim on civil issues which are not claim for damages to another position (e.g., person with related rights and obligations) during the proceedings.
Decree 125 of the Government dated 5 October 2024 (Decree 125/2024) introduces updated regulations for the education sector, including a requirement that a license must be obtained for establishing "other centres performing continuing education tasks" (trung tâm khác thực hiện nhiệm vụ giáo dục thường xuyên in Vietnamese and in the rest of this article, Other Continuing Education Centres). Crucially, the education law fails to clearly define these centres, creating significant ambiguity for education service providers, particularly those centres teaching K-12 subjects (e.g., math, literature).
First, the Education Law 2019 and Decree 125/2024 lack an explicit definition of Other Continuing Education Centres. Interpreting relevant provisions of the Education Law 2019, it appears that Other Continuing Education Centres are centres providing: