The parties entered into a charterparty by demise of a bulk carrier. It was in a state of disrepair. The owners required the charterers to repair it before redelivery, and claimed hire losses until it was returned repaired. The extensive repairs required would have cost far more than the repaired value of the vessel. Mocatta J had accepted this proposition.
Held: The appeal succeeded. If the vessel was out of repair when redelivered, the charterers were liable in damages, but the redelivery without first repairing the vessel was nevertheless valid.
Lord Denning MR considered whether, if the redelivery had been a repudiation of the contract, the owners would have been entitled to refuse to accept it and sue for hire thereafter. The decision in White and Carter had no application ‘in a case in which the plaintiff ought, in all reason, to accept the repudiation and sue for damages, provided that damages would provide an adequate remedy for any loss suffered by him’.
Orr LJ discussed the White and Carter point, saying that in this case, first, the owners could not perform the contract without the co-operation of the charterers and, secondly, the charterers had set out to prove that the owners had no legitimate interest in claiming the hire rather than damages.
Browne LJ agreed with Lord Denning on the principal point and with Orr LJ on the White and Carter point.
Judges:
Lord Denning MR, Orr LJ
Citations:
[1976] 1 Lloyds Reports 250
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Reichman and Another v Beveridge CA 13-Dec-2006
The defendants were tenants of the claimant. They vacated the premises and stopped paying the rent. The claimant sought payment of the arrears of rent. The defendants said that the claimants should have taken steps to reduce their damages by seeking . .
Cited – Clea Shipping Corp v Bulk Oil International, The Alaskan Trader (No 2) 1984
The 24 month charterparty vessel suffered a major engine breakdown after nearly a year. The repairs would take several months. The charterers said they had no further use for the vessel but the owner did the repairs and sought to hold the charterers . .
Distinguished – Salaried Staff London Loan Company Ltd v Swears and Wells Ltd SCS 15-Feb-1985
. .
Cited – MSC Mediterranean Shipping Co Sa v Polish Ocean Lines (The Tychy) CA 31-Mar-1999
A slot charterer had a right in a ship, even if only of a part of the ship, and so a claim under the agreement to arrest a sister ship of the chartering company could be heard within the Admiralty Court’s jurisdiction. . .
Cited – Ocean Marine Navigation Ltd v Koch Carbon Inc (‘The Dynamic’) ComC 31-Jul-2003
The arbitrator had held in favour of the charterers that the owners were limited to damages and could not claim hire. The owners appealed.
Held: The arbitrator had not applied the law correctly in rejecting the owners’ claim to hire, and he . .
Cited – Isabella Shipowner Sa v Shagang Shipping Co Ltd ComC 26-Apr-2012
The claimant ship owners challenged an award on two grounds. First, with permission, the owners appealed under section 69 of the Arbitration Act 1996 on the following question of law: ‘Whether, as a matter of law, owners were entitled to refuse . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Contract, Transport
Updated: 15 May 2022; Ref: scu.396612