The claimants ordered chemicals from the defendant, but there were errors in the order and subsequently. The chemical was mixed with others causing an explosion. The Court of Appeal accepted that the delivery of one load cannot be the performance of two contracts each for one load.
Held: The decision of the Court of Appeal could not be supported. Whether the load of sodium chlorite was delivered pursuant to the contract made by Berk or the contract made by Biachem was determined by reference to the contents of the tank, not the document which accompanied the contents of the tank. In each of the contracts, the primary obligation was to deliver a particular chemical; the obligation to hand over an accurate delivery note with the chemical was a subsidiary obligation. Therefore as the load which was delivered was a load of sodium chlorite, that delivery was made in pursuance of Berk’s contract notwithstanding that Biachem’s delivery note was handed to Albright and Wilson.
Judges:
Lord Nicholls of Birkenhead Lord Slynn of Hadley Lord Hoffmann Lord Hutton Lord Rodger of Earlsferry
Citations:
[2002] UKHL 37, [2002] 2 All ER (Comm) 753, [2003] 1 CLC 637
Links:
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Contract
Updated: 06 June 2022; Ref: scu.177449
