The seller had repudiated a CandF contract containing a GAFTA default clause, which did not include any provision allowing the recovery of expenses occasioned by the breach. The buyers made no claim for damages based on the difference between the contract price and the market price or value, presumably because the market had moved in their favour since the original contract was made. They claimed only the expenses occasioned by the repudiation. They recovered them from the arbitrators
Held: The arbitrator’s award was affirmed. At common law the buyer’s remedy for failure to perform a contract of sale of goods is to claim damages for non-delivery. Where there was an available market, the measure of damages is prima facie to be ascertained by the difference between the contract price and the market or current price of the goods at the time or times when they ought to have been delivered.
Held:
Arbitration appeal from Gafta. Construction of default clause 28 in Gafta – Form 100.
Judges:
Clarke J
Citations:
[1998] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 416, Times 13-Dec-1997
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Fleming and Wendeln Gmbh and Co v Sanofi Sa/Ag ComC 20-Mar-2003
The parties concluded a contract for the sale and purchase of 20,000MT up to 30,000MT at Sellers’ option Russian/Ukrainian black sunseed crop 1997. The price was to ‘be fixed for each shipment latest 15 days prior delivery . . In case . .
Cited – Bunge Sa v Nidera Bv SC 1-Jul-2015
The court considered the effect of the default clause in a standard form of contract which is widely used in the grain trade. On 10 June 2010 the respondents, Nidera BV, whom I shall call ‘the buyers’, entered into a contract with the appellants, . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Contract, Arbitration
Updated: 12 April 2022; Ref: scu.220805