31:
172:
rights which he has lost were capable by the terms of the contract of being rendered either less valuable or valueless in certain events, and if it can be shown that those events were, at the date of acceptance of the repudiation, predestined to happen, then in my view the damages which he can recover are not more than the true value, if any, of the rights which he has lost, having regard to those predestined events.
128:, still discharging cargo from her previous voyage. It was physically impossible for her to finish discharging and reach Haiphong by 20 July. The charterers gave notice cancelling the charter. The owners treated this as a repudiation and claimed damages, which were the subject of arbitration and of an appeal to Mocatta J. On further appeal, there were three issues:
171:
In my view, where there is an anticipatory breach of contract, the breach is the repudiation once it has been accepted, and the other party is entitled to recover by way of damages the true value of the contractual rights which he has thereby lost; subject to his duty to mitigate. If the contractual
147:
On the first issue, all three members of the court decided in favour of the charterers, Bergbau, and against the owners, Maredelanto, that 'expected ready' was a condition of the contract. On the second issue, Lord
Denning held that the charterers had not repudiated the contract by cancelling on 17
200:
case, from the viewpoint of the shipping trade, was the "wait and see" principle. That is, one had to "wait and see" whether the breach had indeed "denied the plaintiff of the main benefit". Given the huge daily cost of hiring and running a ship, parties could not afford to wait. The shipping
176:
All members of the court were viewing the case as from the date of acceptance of the repudiation (although only Megaw LJ said so in terms). They were not taking account of later events. They were recognising, as was obvious on the facts as found, that the value of the contractual right which the
160:, in agreement with the arbitrators, who were themselves agreed, held that they had suffered no damage (p 197): "Seeing that the charterers would, beyond doubt, have cancelled, I am clearly of opinion that the shipowners suffered no loss: and would be entitled at most to nominal damages."
191:
had helped to clarify the distinction between breach of "condition" (where both damages and repudiation lie) and breach of "warranty" (whose sole remedy is damages). The court declared that the victim of a breach of contract could lawfully repudiate only if the "breach had denied the
120:"Should the vessel not be ready to load (whether in berth or not) on or before July 20, 1965, charterers have the option of cancelling this contract, such option to be declared, if demanded, at least 48 hours before vessel's expected arrival at port of loading".
163:
Edmund Davies LJ agreed (p 202): "One must look at the contract as a whole, and if it is clear that the innocent party has lost nothing, he should recover no more than nominal damages for the loss of his right to have the whole contract completed."
115:
dated 25 May 1965 the shipowners ("the owners") stated that the ship was "expected ready to load under this charter about July 1, 1965". The charterparty also provided, in the first sentence of the cancelling clause,
196:
of the main benefit of the contract". Here, even though the vessel's unseaworthiness (through insufficient and incompetent crew) might seem important, its effect was only minor. The problem with the
30:
239:
187:
288:
231:
293:
177:
owners had lost, as of the date of acceptance of the repudiation, was nil because the charter was bound to be lawfully cancelled three days later.
132:
Was the "expected readiness" clause was a condition of which the owners were in breach, entitling the charterers to terminate the charter contract?
138:
Was the damage suffered by the owners (on the assumption that the charterers' premature cancellation had been a repudiation) to be considered?
283:
259:
The concepts of "conditions" and "warranties" were derived from the law of sale of goods, and later adopted by the general law of contract.
149:
135:
If so, had the charterers properly repudiated the contract by cancelling on 17 July, three days before the specified 20 July deadline?
66:
223:
62:
93:
209:
that certain breaches such as breach of an "Expected
Readiness to Load" clause (a type of
206:
89:
49:
277:
157:
112:
153:
70:
193:
125:
108:
210:
213:) were inherently repudiatory, with no need to "wait and see".
205:
decision, as it effectively established a new commercial
240:
Golden Strait
Corporation v Nippon Yusen Kubishka Kaisha
268:
Cost may amount to tens of thousands of dollars per day
111:
and there load a cargo for delivery in Europe. In the
188:
Hong Kong Fir
Shipping Co Ltd v Kawasaki Kisen Kaisha
80:
Maredelanto
Compania Naviera SA v Bergbau-Handel GmbH
56:
45:
37:
23:
169:
232:L Schuler AG v Wickman Machine Tool Sales Ltd
8:
29:
20:
289:Court of Appeal (England and Wales) cases
156:held that they had. On the third issue,
252:
96:case, concerning breach of contract.
7:
14:
167:Megaw LJ (at pp 209–210) stated:
124:On 17 July 1965 the ship was at
294:1970 in United Kingdom case law
1:
224:Bunge Corporation v Tradax SA
284:English termination case law
310:
61:
28:
174:
122:
118:
107:was fixed to sail to
94:English contract law
201:trade welcomed the
105:The Mihalis Angelos
86:The Mihalis Angelos
24:The Mihalis Angelos
16:English legal case
185:The 1962 case of
76:
75:
301:
269:
266:
260:
257:
150:Edmund Davies LJ
67:Edmund Davies LJ
33:
21:
309:
308:
304:
303:
302:
300:
299:
298:
274:
273:
272:
267:
263:
258:
254:
250:
219:
203:Mihalis Angelos
183:
145:
102:
63:Lord Denning MR
41:Court of Appeal
17:
12:
11:
5:
307:
305:
297:
296:
291:
286:
276:
275:
271:
270:
261:
251:
249:
246:
245:
244:
236:
228:
218:
215:
182:
179:
144:
141:
140:
139:
136:
133:
101:
98:
74:
73:
59:
58:
54:
53:
47:
43:
42:
39:
35:
34:
26:
25:
15:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
306:
295:
292:
290:
287:
285:
282:
281:
279:
265:
262:
256:
253:
247:
242:
241:
237:
234:
233:
229:
226:
225:
221:
220:
216:
214:
212:
208:
204:
199:
198:Hong Kong Fir
195:
190:
189:
180:
178:
173:
168:
165:
161:
159:
155:
151:
142:
137:
134:
131:
130:
129:
127:
121:
117:
114:
110:
106:
99:
97:
95:
91:
88:
87:
82:
81:
72:
68:
64:
60:
57:Case opinions
55:
51:
48:
44:
40:
36:
32:
27:
22:
19:
264:
255:
238:
230:
227:2 All ER 513
222:
202:
197:
186:
184:
181:Significance
175:
170:
166:
162:
158:Lord Denning
146:
123:
119:
113:charterparty
104:
103:
85:
84:
79:
78:
77:
18:
52:, 1 QB 164
278:Categories
248:References
207:convention
148:July, but
90:EWCA Civ 4
50:EWCA Civ 4
194:plaintiff
126:Hong Kong
46:Citations
217:See also
154:Megaw LJ
143:Judgment
109:Haiphong
71:Megaw LJ
243:UKHL 12
235:AC 235
92:is an
100:Facts
38:Court
152:and
69:and
211:NOR
83:or
280::
65:,
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
