Investors in small or joint ventures often fund a counterpart who takes on the operational and regulatory tasks: incorporation, licensing, fit-out, branding, operation. When the counterpart performs one element of the obligation and stops short of the rest, the question is whether the investor can treat the contract as breached and recover what has been paid. A recent final ruling of the Investment and Trade Court, issued in late 2025 and not appealed, answers the question in the affirmative.
The Facts
The plaintiff agreed to invest in a commercial venture with the defendants. The understanding was that the defendants would use the funds to establish the operational entity, obtain required approvals, prepare the location, and commence trading. The plaintiff would participate in the resulting business.
The defendants extracted a commercial registration in the name of a juice-corner cafeteria. That was all. The location was not prepared, operations were not commenced, and the plaintiff was not added as a shareholder or director of the new entity. Correspondence produced at trial confirmed the receipt of the funds and the understanding that they would be used for the project's set-up.
The plaintiff served a formal notice demanding either execution of the contract or refund of the sums paid. The defendants did not respond. The plaintiff filed for rescission, restitution, and compensation.
The Court's Analysis
The Court applied the standard rescission framework. Article 171(1) of the Civil Code provides that a contract is the law of the parties. Article 183(1) provides that, in bilateral contracts, where one party fails to perform, the other party may, after service of notice, apply to the court for rescission with compensation where warranted. Article 185 provides that, upon rescission, the parties are restored to their pre-contractual position, with compensation available where restoration is impossible.
The Court treated the defendant's obligation as an indivisible one. The contract required multiple steps, of which only one (the commercial registration) had been performed. The burden of proving full performance sits on the party asserting it. The defendants, although represented at the hearings, produced no evidence of further steps. Extraction of a commercial registration did not, on its own, discharge the obligation.
The Court ordered rescission. The defendant company was required to refund the full invested sum, with additional compensation for the material and moral harm resulting from the non-performance. The judgment was ordered to be immediately enforceable, with bond, consistent with the treatment of commercial matters under the Judicial Execution Law.
The Claim Against the Manager
The claim against the individual manager was rejected. The Court reiterated the orthodox position under Qatari company law. A company has a separate legal personality. A manager who signs a contract on behalf of a company does so in a representative capacity, not a personal one. Qatari law provides specific routes for pursuing a manager personally in defined circumstances, but the plaintiff had not pleaded a basis of that kind. A general request for joint liability, without more, cannot overcome the corporate veil.
Takeaways
Two points emerge. First, partial execution of a multi-step contractual obligation is not performance. A counterpart who funds a project and receives only a commercial registration in return is entitled to treat the contract as breached and pursue rescission with restitution. Second, a claim seeking to hold a company's manager personally liable must be pleaded on specific statutory grounds. Reliance on the manager's general involvement in the transaction is not enough.
This article is provided for general information only and does not constitute legal advice.
Is a counterparty claiming partial performance discharged the contract?
We act for investors and businesses in rescinding contracts and recovering payments where obligations were not genuinely performed.
Contact the firm →