The ship was returned by the charterer after the expiry of the time charter. The court was asked as to when the validity of the last order was to be tested.
Held: The legitimacy of the charterer’s final order was to be tested at the date it had been given. Counsel had respectively argued: ‘Furthermore, and central to Mr Rix’s argument, the owners would be compensated in damages in accordance with the normal common law measure of damages under the rule in Hadley v Baxendale for any period of overrun which would normally be based on market rates of hire under the first rule; but also, if the facts warranted, by additional damages (e.g. for the loss of a fixture) under the second rule’ and on the other side: ‘Mr Gross asserts that damages may be an inadequate remedy, since the owners are unlikely to be able to recover compensation for the loss of a subsequent fixture and are likely to be confined to recovering hire at the market rate (i.e. within the first rule in Hadley v Baxendale). But this is essentially a complaint against the well established common law rules on the measure of damages and indeed on the facts of individual cases the owners might well be able to bring themselves within the second rule in Hadley v Baxendale (e.g. if the owners explicitly warned the charterers at the time of the last voyage order then (sic) an overrun might imperil a subsequent fixture). ‘
Judges:
Hirst, Russell and Simon Brown, L.JJ
Citations:
Ind Summary 05-Jul-1993, Times 04-Jun-1993, [1993] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 335
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
Appeal from – Torvald Klaveness A/S v Arni Maritime Corporation (The Gregos) ChD 1991
The ship was returned late from a charter. The court was asked whether or not the legitimacy of the last voyage fell to be established at the date when the order was given or at the time when the last voyage began.
Held: It was the second: . .
Cited by:
Appeal from – Torvald Klaveness A/S v Arni Maritime Corporation (The Gregos) HL 28-Oct-1994
In a continuing charter when it was clear that the time of the charter will be exceeded, the contract allows an action for an anticipatory breach. Any new redelivery order was to be obtained after after it first became impossible to meet the charter . .
Cited – Transfield Shipping Inc of Panama v Mercator Shipping Inc of Monrovia ComC 1-Dec-2006
The owners made substantial losses after the charterers breached the contract by failing to redliver the ship on time as agreed.
Held: On the facts found the Owners’ primary claim is not too remote. To the knowledge of the Charterers, it was . .
Cited – Transfield Shipping Inc v Mercator Shipping Inc (The Achilleas) HL 9-Jul-2008
The parties contracted to charter the Achileas. The charterer gave notice to terminate the hire, and the owner found a new charterer. Until the termination the charterers sub-chartered. That charter was not completed, delaying the ship for the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Transport, Contract
Updated: 26 October 2022; Ref: scu.89922
