The parties, suppliers of goods and charterers, disputed the ownership of bunkers at the point of sale.
Held: Lord Diplock said: ‘My Lords I agree with Lord Justice Kerr that cl.3 [which set out that Owners were to pay for bunkers on redelivery] and the latter half of cl.4 [which set out the means of redelivery] deal with the same subject-matter and are confined to it. The latter half of cl.4 deals with the redelivery of the vessel (i.e. its being put once more at the disposal of the shipowners by the charterers) on dropping last outward sea pilot at the port within the redelivery range at the end of the contract period; in casu, about two years, 45 days more/less, from the date of delivery. Clause 3 deals with what is to happen to the bunkers aboard the vessel at the time of that redelivery. I share the view of Lord Justice Kerr that as a matter of construction its express provisions are wholly inapt to apply to termination otherwise that pursuant to cl.4’
Judges:
Lord Diplock
Citations:
[1984] 1 Lloyds Rep 119
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
Appeal from – The Span Terza CA 1982
The term ‘charterer’ in section 21(4) includes ‘time charterer’. . .
Cited by:
Cited – Angara Maritime Ltd v Oceanconnect UK Ltd and Another QBD 29-Mar-2010
The court was asked as to the application of Section 25(1) of the Sale of Goods Act 1979 when an unpaid supplier of bunkers to a time charterer claims against the owner of the vessel.
Held: The issue was whether as a matter of fact there was a . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Transport, Contract
Updated: 02 May 2022; Ref: scu.422376
