Bunge Sa v Nidera Bv: ComC 29 Jan 2013

The Court was asked: ‘2.1 Is the application of the GAFTA prohibition clause limited to a case where it can be seen after the event that performance of the contract has in fact been prevented by the prohibition in question?
2.2. Does the GAFTA default clause exclude common law principles for the assessment of damages for anticipatory repudiatory breach and in particular (i) the principle of mitigation and/or (ii) the compensation principle identified in The Golden Victory [2007] 2 AC 353?
2.3. Is the ‘overriding compensatory principle’ established by The Golden Victory limited to instalment contracts?
2.4. Was the board wrong in law to conclude that the buyers’ rejection of the sellers’ offer to reinstate the contract did not constitute a failure to mitigate on the ground that the sellers did not offer to reinstate the contract on different and more favourable terms than contained in the original contract?’
Held: The Court dismissed the appeal on issues 2.1, 2.2 and 2.4. Clause 20 of GAFTA determined the measure of damages whether or not it produced a result corresponding to the common law and issue 2.3 did not arise.
HamblenJ
[2013] EWHC 84 (Comm)
Bailii
England and Wales
Cited by:
Appeal fromBunge Sa v Nidera Bv CA 12-Dec-2013
The court heard an appeal from an order upholding an award made by the Board of Appeal of the Grain and Feed Trade Association concerning the effect of the Prohibition clause in the GAFTA standard form of contract for delivery on f.o.b. terms of . .
At First InstanceBunge 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, . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 28 April 2021; Ref: scu.470708