A contract for a tug expressly provided a benefit for a third party. He now sought to claim benefit under it.
Held: If, in the absence of a trust in his favour a third party for whose benefit a contract had expressly been made, could not take that benefit, then a trust would be implied. In this case it had been correct to imply actual authority to contract on behalf of the claimant.
Peter Gibson, Clarke LJJ, Dyson J
England and Wales
Cited – Midland Silicones Ltd v Scruttons Ltd HL 6-Dec-1961
The defendant stevedores, engaged by the carrier, negligently damaged a drum containing chemicals. When the cargo-owners sued in tort, the stevedores unsuccessfully attempted to rely on a limitation clause contained in the bill of lading between the . .
Cited – The Mahkutai PC 24-Apr-1996
(Hong Kong) The question was whether shipowners, who were not parties to the bill of lading contract between the charterers and carriers on the one part, and the cargo-owners, the bill of lading being a charterer’s bill, could enforce against the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 08 May 2022; Ref: scu.185203