A time charterparty was dated 20 October 1997 for a period of 11 months, maximum 12 months at charterers’ option. It referred to various major oil company approvals, including that of Mobil, all on the point of expiring, and provided that if, during the charter term, the owners lost one of these approvals, they should reinstate the same within 30 days failing which the charterers would be at liberty to cancel the charterparty. The owners also guaranteed to obtain an approval from Exxon within 60 days of the charter date. The vessel was duly delivered but the owners had not obtained an Exxon approval from Exxon and did not do so within 60 days from the charter date. On 30 December 1997 the charterers fixed the vessel to load a cargo of Exxon products. On the same date the charterers asked the owners if they had obtained the Exxon approval and gave notice requiring the owners to obtain it by 5 January 1998. The owners replied that the vessel would be ready for Exxon inspection by late January or early February. The charterers responded by terminating the charter and redelivering the vessel. At a first hearing Aikens J held that the 60-day guarantee was an innominate term, not a condition, and the charterers were not entitled to terminate, and had repudiated the charterparty, which the owners had accepted. In subsequent proceedings the owners sought damages for wrongful termination, claiming the difference between the daily hire rates in the charter and the alternative employment found for the vessel for the rest of the charter period. The charterers contended that the owners would have lost their Mobil approval on 27 January 1998 and would not have been able to regain it within 30 days, namely 26 February: therefore the charterers would be contractually entitled to cancel, and the owners’ damages should end then.
Held: Timothy Walker J discussed the three judgments in the Mihalis Angelos, discounting Megaw LJ’s formulation as that of a minority, but found on the facts, as established at 30 December 1997, that the owners would have lost the Mobil approval on 27 January 1998. This was supported by evidence of what actually happened after 30 December. The charter would have come to an end on 26 February, and the court limited the owners’ damages accordingly.
Judges:
Timothy Walker J
Citations:
[2000] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 37
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
Examined, Megaw LJ discounted – Maredelanto Compania Naviera SA v BergbauHandel GmbH (The Mihalis Angelos) CA 1-Jul-1970
The parties had agreed a charterparty. The ship was to sail to Haiphong to load a cargo for delivery in Europe. The charterer had a right to cancel if the vessel was not ready on a certain date, but a few days earlier they repudiated the charter. . .
Cited by:
Cited – Golden Strait Corporation v Nippon Yusen Kubishka Kaisha (‘The Golden Victory’) HL 28-Mar-2007
The claimant sought damages for repudiation of a charterparty. The charterpary had been intended to continue until 2005. The charterer repudiated the contract and that repudiation was accepted, but before the arbitrator could set his award, the Iraq . .
Cited – Golden Strait Corporation v Nippon Yusen Kubishka Kaisha (‘The Golden Victory’) HL 28-Mar-2007
The claimant sought damages for repudiation of a charterparty. The charterpary had been intended to continue until 2005. The charterer repudiated the contract and that repudiation was accepted, but before the arbitrator could set his award, the Iraq . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Transport
Updated: 06 December 2022; Ref: scu.252436