By a written contract for the construction of certain ships the plans were expressly incorporated with the contract. These plans showed the vessels with straight keels, but as actually constructed the keels were cambered or arched so as to have a curve inwards. The effect of the camber was to increase the carrying capacity of the vessel, but it gave rise at the same time to inconvenience and expense when the vessel required to be docked, and was generally regarded as a serious defect unless it was of such slight amount that the keel would become straight when the vessel was loaded with cargo owing to the extra weight amidships.
A claim of damages by the shipowners on account of the camber, which had not disappeared in the manner indicated, was met by the defence that it had been resorted to in compliance with oral instructions given by the pursuers subsequent to the date of the written contract, and a proof in regard to this averment was, without objection, led before the Lord Ordinary. Evidence upon which held ( rev. the judgment of the Lord Ordinary and of the First Division) that the defenders had failed to prove the alleged verbal modification of the contract.
Judges:
Lord Chancellor (Halsbury), and Lords Macnaghten, Morris, and Davey
Citations:
[1900] UKHL 641, Lord Chancellor (Halsbury), and Lords Macnaghten, Morris, and Davey
Links:
Jurisdiction:
Scotland
Contract
Updated: 27 October 2022; Ref: scu.631497