References: [1984] AC 676, [1984] 3 WLR 1
Coram: Lord Diplock
A bill of lading incorporated a charterparty. The question was whether clauses in the charterparty or bill of lading prevailed. The charter clause incorporated a demurrage clause making the charterer’s laible for demurrage, and the owners asserted that the included demurrage clause made the cargo’s consignee, as holders of the bill, directly responsible for the demurrage.
Held: On its true construction, the contract the parties to the bill of lading intended that the charterer alone should carry responsibility. There is no general rule of construction that an incorporated clause which related directly to the issue operate in substitution for clauses on the same issue in the bill.
This case cites:
- Considered – Gray -v-Carr ((1871) LR 6 QB 522)
. . - Considered – Porteua -v- Watney CA ((1878) 3 QBD 534)
. . - Considered – The Merak ([1965] CLY 3608)
. . - Considered – The Annefield ([1971] CLY 10839)
. .
This case is cited by:
- Cited – Tradigrain SA and Others -v- King Diamond Marine Limited The Spiros C CA (Bailii, [2000] EWCA Civ 217)
The owner of a ship, the defendant, sought payment direct. The time charterer had become insolvent, but the ship had been sub-chartered to the claimant. The owner sought to exercise his lien over the cargo, but the sub-charterer had discharged his . . - Cited – Sigma Finance Corporation, Re; (in administrative receivership) SC ([2010] 1 All ER 571, [2010] BCC 40, Bailii Summary, UKSC 2009/0143, SC Summary, SC, Bailii, [2009] UKSC 2)
The court considered how the losses of the insolvent company were to be distributed as between secured creditors and preferential creditors, given the terms of the applicable trust deed.
Held: The court considered the interpretations of the . .
