Owners wished to let their vessel on time charter to Afram Line Limited but were unwilling to do so without a guarantee. The negotiations were conducted by Centre Shipping on behalf of owners and Dipgrove Holdings on behalf of charterers. It was agreed at an early stage of the negotiations that there would be a guarantee. Main terms but not the details were agreed by noon on 23 December 1983. The terms of a proposed guarantee were sent by telex to Shirlstar, the proposed guarantor, by Centre, soon after 12 noon on 23 December. Later in the afternoon in the course of a telephone conversation Mr Bott of Dipgrove confirmed to Mr Sorensen of Centre that Shirlstar was willing to give a guarantee in the terms proposed.
Held: The effect of the conversation was that Mr Bott on behalf of Shirlstar offered to guarantee the obligations of charterers if the owners entered into a charterparty with the main terms that had by then been agreed by Mr Bott and Mr Sorensen. That offer was one which could be accepted by the conclusion of such a charterparty. Before that happened, it might of course have been revoked. Thereafter negotiations continued on the details, with agreement being reached shortly after midnight on 23/24 December.
The typing of an alleged guarantor’s signature on a telex was ‘in writing and signed by the parties to be charged’ for the purposes of section 4: ‘I reached a provisional view in the course of the argument that the answerback of the sender of a telex would constitute a signature, whilst that of the receiver would not since it only authenticates the document and does not convey approval of the contents. But in the event the point does not arise.’
Staughton J
[1987] 1 Lloyds Rep 546
Statute of Frauds 1677 4
Citing:
Cited – Eccles v Bryant and Pollock CA 1947
The Plaintiff contended that a letter written by the purchaser’s solicitor which effectively set out the terms of the agreement, enclosed the part of the contract signed by the purchaser, and asked in exchange for the counter-part signed by the . .
Cited – Von Hatzfeldt-Wildensburg v Alexander ChD 26-Jul-1911
A purchaser wrote offering to purchase a house, saying acceptance was subject to her solicitor approving title, covenants, lease and form of contract.
Held: It was not a complete contract capable of enforcement: ‘It appears to be well settled . .
Cited by:
Cited – Good Challenger Navegante S A v Metalexportimport SA CA 24-Nov-2003
The claimant sought to enforce an arbitration award made in 1983. Time might otherwise have expired, but the claimants relied on a fax which they said was an acknowledgement of the debt, and also upon a finding in a Romanian court which created an . .
Cited – Golden Ocean Group Ltd v Salgaocar Mining Industries Pvt Ltd and Another CA 9-Mar-2012
The court was asked ‘whether a contract of guarantee is enforceable where contained not in a single document signed by the guarantor but in a series of documents duly authenticated by the signature of the guarantor. It is common in commercial . .
Cited – Golden Ocean Group Ltd v Salgaocar Mining Industries Pvt Ltd and Another CA 9-Mar-2012
The court was asked ‘whether a contract of guarantee is enforceable where contained not in a single document signed by the guarantor but in a series of documents duly authenticated by the signature of the guarantor. It is common in commercial . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Transport, Contract
Updated: 21 December 2021; Ref: scu.188228
