The respondent company was incorporated in England in 1873, the entire share capital being contributed by four ironmasters, one of them now represented by the appellant company. As part of the arrangement made at that time, contracts were entered into by the respondent to supply for a term of ninety-nine years specified amounts of ore at a specified rate to the promoters. The contract provided for its suspension during any period ‘in which an unavoidable cause shall exist preventing the company from delivering.’ The appellant claimed that by this clause the contract though suspended was preserved. Held that on the outbreak of war the contract was dissolved, not suspended.
Eitel, Bieber, and Company v. Rio Tinto Company,  A.C. 260, 50 S.L.R. 784, applied.
Decision of the Court of Appeal, 118 L.T.R. 237, affirmed.
Lord Chancellor (Smith), Lords Buckmaster, Finlay, Dunedin, Atkinson, and Shaw
 UKHL 638, 56 SLR 638
England and Wales
Updated: 17 January 2022; Ref: scu.632767