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.
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:
Following the issuance of the Law on Electricity 2024, Vietnam's Government has swiftly replaced its initial framework for Direct Power Purchase Agreements (DPPAs) under Decree 80/2024 by issuing Decree 57/2025 on 3 March 2025. Coming into effect immediately, Decree 57/2025 repeals Decree 80/2024, which had only been active since 3 July 2024. Decree 57/2025 largely maintains the two DPPA models introduced by Decree 80/2024 (1) via private line (Private DPPA) and (2) via the national grid (Grid-Connected DPPA), but introduces important changes impacting eligibility, pricing, and contractual details. Key changes include:
Flexible customer eligibility - Decree 57/2025 links customer eligibility (for initial participation and ongoing qualification) to a minimum consumption threshold (Minimum Take Amount) defined in the Wholesale Electricity Market Operation Regulations issued by the Ministry of Industry and Trade (MOIT). Decree 80/2024 instead used a fixed threshold (average ≥200,000 kWh/month). Accordingly, eligibility for participating in either DPPA model now depends on potentially dynamic wholesale market rules rather than a static figure, requiring ongoing monitoring of MOIT's regulations.
Stricter customer eligibility – A Large Customer in a DPPA arrangement which has been implemented for 12 months must ensure that in a calendar year, it has purchased from EVN the Minimum Take Amount for the 12 month periods ending on 31 October of the previous calendar year. Under Decree 80/2024, there is no requirement that the Minimum Take Amount must be purchased from EVN. It is not clear if this requirement will apply to a Private DPPA under which the customer purchases directly from the RE Generator.
Article 9 of the Investment Law 2020 provides for three kinds of business for foreign investors:
market-access-prohibited business lines (ngành, nghề chưa được tiếp cận thị trường in Vietnamese) (Prohibited Businesses);
business lines with conditional market access (ngành, nghề tiếp cận thị trường có điều kiện in Vietnamese) (Conditional Businesses); and
business lines which are not Conditional Businesses and Prohibited Businesses and are subject to the same market access treatment as domestic investors (Unrestricted Businesses).
However, Decree 31/2021 introduces another category of business lines being "business lines without market access commitment" (ngành, nghề Việt Nam chưa cam kết về tiếp cận thị trường in Vietnamese) (Uncommitted Business). It is unclear what the relationship between the Uncommitted Business and the Conditional Business under the Investment Law 2020 is.
Under Article 24.2 of the Investment Law 2020, offshore investors who intend to acquire equity in Vietnam-based companies must meet the land regulations on “conditions for receiving land use right” (LUR). However, the land law does not specify any conditions applicable to the offshore investors given that they are not a regulated land user.
Article 28.1(d) of the Land Law 2024 and its guiding provision, Article 9.1 of Decree 102/2024 only permit foreign-invested entities (FIEs), which can be established by offshore investors, to receive a transfer of equity being value of land use right originating from land allocation with land use fee payment or land lease with one-time rental payment to the State. Article 9.1 of Decree 102/2024 suggests that "equity being value of land use right " (vốn đầu tư là giá trị quyền sử dụng đất) (LUR Equity) is the equity in a company's charter capital created by contributing land use rights.
These provisions seem vague and can be interpreted differently, leading to varying conclusions.