|
|
CONTENTS,TERMS, FAIRNESS IN CONTRACT LAW AND BREACH OF CONTRACT
|
- pre-contractual statements:
- puffs, boastful statement made in advert, if false: no liability, not taken seriously
- representations, statement which induces party to enter into contract (does not form part of it), if false, liability, misrepresentation need proof of fault
- terms, promise or undertaking which becomes part of contract itself, liability, breach of contract, automatic right to sue
|
|
|
J. Evans (Portsmouth) v Andrea Merzario [1976] (incorporating terms, contract is in writing, exception to parol evidence rule)
|
- C had contract with D to make transport arrangements for goods into England; clause stated shipper reserves to itself complete freedom of the procedure to be followed in handling and transportation of goods; BUT there was verbal agreement in which D promised would transport C's cargo below deck but due to oversight a container was shipped to England on deck...due to waves, container fell off deck and machine lost overboard; C claimed damages against D for loss of machine as carriage on deck was breach
- court held oral promise was incorporated into contract; contract was partly oral, partly written and partly by conduct; court looks at all evidence; D liable for breach
|
|
|
L’Estrange v Graucob [1934] (incorporation of terms, signed contract)
|
- C owned cafe, ordered cigarette vending machine from manufacturer that was faulty; contract, which she signed without reading, contained clause "any express or implied condition, statement or warranty, statutory or otherwise not stated therein is hereby excluded; she claimed for breach, claimed she had not seen the clause and had no knowledge of it
- C's claim failed; party signing it is bound and it is wholly immaterial whether document was read or not
- note signed contract can be invalidated in whole or part if there is a misrepresentation as to the effect of the exclusion clause, no misrep in this case
|
|
|
Couchman v Hill [1947] (incorporation of terms, importance of statement, exception to parol evidence rule: verbal condition overriding written condition)
|
- a heifer (young cow) had not been used for breeding...catalogue contained the following condition:"The lots are sold with all faults, imperfections, and errors of description". Another condition stated that the accuracy of the information was not guaranteed and that no compensation would be paid for any errors of description BUT man gave ORAL OFFER OF WARRANTY which overrode the catalogue condition; D was liable
|
|
|
STANDARD TERMS AND CONDITIONS - THE RULE IN L'ESTRANGE v GRAUCOB - THE INCORPORATION OF TERMS - MORE CASES
|
- ‘The Luna’ [1920] signature, another language, still liable
- Tilden Rent-a-Car v Clendenning (1978) signing document for car rental without reading it, circumstance asks quickness so D cannot be said to consent to onerous terms in contract
- EXCEPTIONS TO L'ESTRANGE RULE
- Lloyds Bank v Waterhouse [1993] non est factum, illiterate...so had disability, doc he signed VERY different from what he thought was signing AND taken care to discover content of documents
- Barclays Bank v Schwartz (1995) non est factum, illiteracy was not enough, D clearly knew enough language to get by in business
- MISREPRESENTATIONS or FRAUD
- Curtis v Chemical Cleaning and Dyeing Co [1951] wedding dress, stain, misrep of clause by store assistant,
- J. Evans (Portsmouth) v Andrea Merzario [1976] cargo on deck instead of in hold
- Peekay Intermark Ltd v Australia and New ZealandBanking Group [2006] there was misrepresentation BUT it was corrected at time of final terms, cannot claim misrep induced him
- DOCUMENT NOT FULL CONTRACT
- Roe v Naylor (No2) [1919] the sold note contained a condition not part of the original verbal contract and not assented to by plaintiff, it was not a proper memorandum in writing of the agreement between the parties; and plaintiff was entitled to succeed on the oral contract, the defence that there was no sufficient memorandum in writing of the agreement not having been pleaded.
- Grogan v Meredith Plant Hire (1996)
- OBJECTIVE CONSTRUCTION
- Harvey v Ventilarorenfabrik Oelde [1989]
- NOTICE - UNUSUAL AND ONEROUS TERMS
- Spurling v Bradshaw [1956]
- Interfoto Picture Library v Stiletto Visual Programmes [1988]
- Ocean Chemical Transport Inc v Exnor Craggs Ltd [2000]
- Photolibrary Group Ltd v Burda Senator Verlag [2008]
- TICKET CASES
- Parker v SE Railway Co (1887)
- Thornton v Shoe Lane Parking [1971]
- Chapleton v Barry UDC [1940]
- Olley v Marlborough Court Hotel [1949]
- COURSE OF CONDUCT/DEALINGS
- McCutcheon v David MacBrayne Ltd [1964] car sinking on ferry, a few previous dealings; A party is bound to a contract if signed. Knowledge of terms is tested subjectively, thus prior relations are therefore not enough unless there was actual subjective knowledge of the condition.
|
|
|
|
- where a contract has been reduced to writing, extrinsic evidence, written or oral, is inadmissible to add to, vary, or contradict its terms; a written contract is presumed to contain everything upon which the parties agreed and anything that is not embodied in the contract is considered never to have been intended to be included; this is so even if there is oral or written matter that suggests otherwise
|
|
|
PAROL EVIDENCE RULE EXCEPTIONS
|
- Written contract not whole agreement (J Evans v Andrea Mezario)
- validity
- implied terms
- oral warranties
- to prove operation of the contract ie condition precedent (Pym v Campbell [1856] sale of machinery, contract written, oral terms of acknowledgment that sale was subject to inspection and approval by engineer)
- evidence as to who are the parties,
- specific performance
- aid to construction
- custom or trade usage
- to identify subject matter
- rectification
- collateral agreements (Shanklin Pier v Detel Products Ltd [1951])
- evidence of consideration (Shanklin Pier v Detel Products Ltd [1951] )
|
|
|
SHANKLIN PIER v DETEL PRODUCTS LTD [1951] (privity of contracts, collateral contracts, parol evidence rule exception)
|
- C entered into contract with painting contractors to paint their pier, having been assured by D (paint manufacturers) that their paint would last at least 7 years without deterioration; D sold the paint to contractors; the paint peeled in 3 months; pier owners could not sue painters since they had done their work and completed their side of contract; pier owners sued paint manufacturer
- pier owners successful; although not party to contract between contractor and manufacturer (therefore no privity of contract), HELD that collateral contract had arisen from promise as to suitability of paint
- identify a contract between party making promise (DETEL) and other party (PIER) as promise induced (PIER) to enter into separate contract (with CONTRACTOR); party making promise (DETEL) gains some benefit in being able to sell their goods on strength of main contract between PIER and CONTRACTORS
|
|
|
PAROL EVIDENCE RULE and EXCEPTIONS, more cases
|
- PAROL EVIDENCE RULE
- Jacobs v Batavia and General Plantations Ltd [1924] prospectus and deposit notes, sale without giving C option; entire contract contained in those two written instruments
- Newman v Gatti (1907) no right on C (understudy) to play the part, only to play if called upon by management, written contract
- EXCEPTIONS
- Joscelyn v Nissen [1970] father and daughter contract lacking continuing common intention, could rectify contract
- Brown v Sheen and Richmond Car Sales Ltd [1950] crap car, dealers had given warranty as to condition of car that had induced C to enter into
- Smith v Wilson (1832) lessee and lessor, rabbits, word thousand meaning 1200 to class of person, evidence to that effect is admissible for the purpose of applying theinstrument to its proper subject-matter
- ENTIRE AGREEMENT CLAUSE
- Inntrepreneur Pub Co Ltd v East Crown Ltd [2000] breaking beer tie in relation to lease, C win, the "entire agreement" clause contained in the lease not only had the effect of rendering evidence of the alleged collateral warranty inadmissible, but also deprived the warranty of all legal effect
- Deepak Fertilisers and Petrochemical Corp v Davy McKee (London) Ltd [1999] exploded factory in India
- PRE-CONTRACTUAL NEGOTIATIONS ARE INADMISSIBLE
- Prenn v Simmonds [1971] share acquisition; In construing a written agreement evidence of negotiations or the parties' intentions is not receivable but evidence of the factual background known to the parties at or before the date of contract is.
- Chartbrook Ltd v Persimmon Homes Ltd [2009] D building houses on C's land; D won, no limit to the ‘red ink’ that the court could use to correct the verbiage when it was clear that in its commercial context, an agreement could not make sense.
|
|
|
INTERPRETATION OF CONTRACT
|
Lovelland Christmas Ltd v Wall (1911)
Jeffries v Archer [2010]
Investors Compensation Scheme Ltd v West Bromwich Building Society [1998]
Estor Ltd v Multifit (UK) Ltd [2009]
- BUSINESS / COMMON SENSE APPROACH
- Antaios Cia Naviera SA v Salen Rederierna AB [1985]
- Rainy Sky v Kookmin Bank [2011] The Supreme Court confirmed the principle laid down in Wickman v Schuler that, if the words of a contract have ambiguous meanings, the court will interpret it in a manner that most accords with "business common sense". There is no requirement for a party to prove that the alternative interpretation is entirely unreasonable.
- TRADE PRACTICE IMPLIES TERMS
- British Crane Hire Corp v Ipswich Plant Hire [1975]
- Attorney General of Belize v Belize Telecom[2009] UKPC 10 [2009] The implication of a term is an exercise in the construction of the contract as a whole. The background facts should have been admitted as evidence to interpret the articles in this particular situation; if term is missing, maybe deliberately and construction process reveals so, then courts should accept clause is not implied in fact and allow loss to lie where it falls
- POST CONTRACT INADMISSIBLE
James Miller and Partners Ltd v Whitworth Street Estates (Manchester) Ltd [1970]
|
|
|
|
- TERMS:
- CONDITIONS breach of condition entitles claimant to repudiate the contract and/or claim damages
- WARRANTY breach of warranty entitles claimant to damages only
- INNOMINATE TERMS court considers consequences of the breach and then decides remedy
|
|
|
POUSSARD v SPIERS and POND (1876) (breach of condition)
|
- actress under contract to appear as lead in operetta; taken ill and unable to attend 1st performance, role given to understudy, she recovers and sues for breach
- claim failed; court held as lead performer she was of crucial importance to success of production; therefore a condition of contract which she breached by failing to attend first performances; producers entitled to repudiate and terminate contract
|
|
|
BETTINI v GYE (1876) (breach of warranty)
|
- singer under contract to appear in series of concerts in different theatres; contract includes term that he should attend rehearsals six days before live performances commence; singer did not attend first three rehearsals and was replaced; singer sued for breach
- claim successful; court held attendance at rehearsals was peripheral to main purpose of contract; term was considered to be warranty which entitled producers to sue for damages but not repudiate and terminate contract by replacing singer with another
|
|
|
HONG KONG FIR SHIPPING v KAWASAKI KISEN KAISHA [1962] (innominate terms)
|
- D contracted with C to charter vessel for period of 2 yrs; term in contract required vessel fitted in every way for ordinary cargo service and that owners maintain her thoroughly efficient state during service; soon after beginning, ship broke down due to incompetence of engine room staff and in any event it was discovered that ship not seaworthy and in need of many repairs; C were deprived of use of ship for 18 weeks while being repaired for seaworthiness; D wrote to owners to repudiate charter; C brought action for wrongful repudiation, claiming term was warranty not condition
- held C in breach of contract to deliver seaworthy vessel and failed to maintain vessel in efficient state; breach was not substantial enough to entitle repudiation
|
|
|
|
- by the court implied in fact (The Moorcock) and implied in law (Liverpool City Council v Irwin)
- by custom on evidence of local custom or trade usage where contract is silent provided that it is not contract to express terms of contract
- by statute most importantly by Sales of Goods Act 1979 and Supply of Goods and Services Act 1982
|
|
|
THE MOORCOCK (1889) (terms implied by fact)
|
- C entered into contract with D to dock and unload cargo from ship at wharf on Thames; ship was grounded at jetty at low tide and broke up on rocks; C sued for damage to ship; D claimed no express term relating to safety of ship and so not liable for breach
- court held implied term in contract that ship would not be damaged; term necessary in order to give contract business efficacy; D liable for breach of implied term
|
|
|
LIVERPOOL CITY COUNCIL v IRWIN (1976) (terms implied by law)
|
- condition of council tower block deteriorated such that stairs and lifts were in disrepair and internal rubbish chutes were blocked; Irwin alleged a breach on part of council of its implied covenant for their quiet enjoyment of property; rent strike by tenants including D
- HoL held implied term of lease that landlord should take reasonable care to keep common parts of the block in reasonable state of repair; term clearly not implied in fact; 'officious bystander' test not satisfied; implication was also not required to give business efficacy to contract
- implication arose because relationship between parties made it desirable to place obligation on landlord as to maintenance of common parts of premises; done by imposition of legal duty even though no contractual term could be implied in fact
|
|
|
British Crane HireCorp v Ipswich Plant Hire [1975] (implied by trade or custom)
|
- Ipswich hired crane from British, crane sank into mud, cost British a lot of money to recover, sued Ipswich...customary in the trade that the hirer pay cost of recovery; D had not signed the contract which had the term about their liability for recovery, so contract/terms not incorporated BUT implied by trade/custom
- court implied the term into the contract as both parties were in the business of plant hire and it was known to both that the use of such terms was prevalent in the trade.
|
|
|
IMPLIED TERMS, MORE CASES
|
- Lister v Romford Ice and Cold Storage Co Ltd [1957]
- BP (Westernport) Pty Ltd v The President,Councillors and Ratepayers of the Shire of Hastings (1978)
- Attorney General of Belize v Belize Telecom Ltd [2009]
- Yam Seng Pte Ltd v International Trade Corp Ltd [2013]
|
|
|
|
- to be valid at common law:
- must be a term of the contract
- it must cover damage that was caused
- it must be reasonable
- incorporation by signature is same;
- incorporation by notice requires introduction before OR at time of contract
- reasonable notice
- attention should be drawn to exclusion clauses by clear words and on document which might be reasonable be considered to contain contractual terms (TICKET CASES)
- must ensure it was has been brought to attention of other party
|
|
|
CURTIS v CHEMICAL CLEANING and DYEING [1951] (incorporation of terms, misrepresentation)
|
- C took wedding dress to be cleaned; signed document containing clause purporting to exempt dry cleaners from any damage; when asked about clause, girl said clause only referred to exclusion liability for damage to beads or sequin on the dress; dress suffered bad staining and C sued; D attempted to rely on the clause
- claim successful; court considered D could not rely on exclusion clause because of statement made by assistant;
|
|
|
OLLEY v MARLBOROUGH COURT HOTEL [1949] (exclusion clause, timing of notice, express notice)
|
- Cs booked at D hotel; contract for stay formed at point of check-in; while they were out for evening, their key was taken from reception, used to gain access to their room; fur coat stolen and claimed for damages from hotel; hotel attempted to disclaim liability based on notice displayed on wall of Olleys' hotel room "proprietors will not hold themselves liable for articles lost or stolen unless handed to the manageress for safe custody"
- court held hotel could not rely upon the exclusion clause; contract was formed at reception desk at which point Olleys not yet in room and can't see the notice; unaware of notice at time of contract, notice terms not incorporated into contract, hotel liable
|
|
|
PARKER v SOUTH EASTERN RAILWAY (1877) (incorporation of terms, reasonable notice)
|
- C left luggage in cloakroom of railway station and given ticket in return for payment of fee; ticket had clause on back providing railway company not liable in respect of any luggage exceeding £10 in value; luggage stolen, worth more than £10; railway attempted to exclude liability based on clause
- claim successful; railway company could not prove that they had brought C's attention to the exclusion clause; since C had not been made sufficiently aware of existence of clause, not bound by it
|
|
|
CHAPELTON v BARRY UDC [1940] (incorporation of terms, contractual document)
|
- C hired 2 deckchairs and received 2 tickets from council's beach attendant in return for payment; on back of ticket was exclusion clause; C believed ticket merely a receipt and did not read it; sat on chair, it collapsed, C injured; C sued, D attempted to rely on exclusion clause
- claim successful; court did not accept that exclusion clause had been incorporated into contract since it had not been brought to C's attention and held it unreasonable to assume ticket contained contractual terms
|
|
|
THORNTON v SHOE LANE PARKING (1971) (incorporation of terms, tickets, requirement of notice)
|
- sign at entrace of car park stating fees and notice that parking is at owner's risk; ticket obtained from automatic vendor, this raises barrier; ticket contained statement referring to notice board of conditions displayed on premises; conditions for contract displayed INSIDE car park after ticket obtained and included exclusion clause; C injured in car park and sued for damages; D argued they were covered
- claim successful; court considered operators of car park had not taken sufficient steps to draw exclusion notice to claimant's attention before contract made; DENNING contract formed at the moment barrier was activated
|
|
|
INTERFOTO PICTURE LIBRARY v STILETTO VISUAL PROGRAMMES (1988) (incorporation of terms, reference to another document, unusual and onerous terms)
|
- C photo library, D advertising business; C advanced some transparencies to D; D was to contact C about which ones they wanted but forgot for 6 weeks; C had included document in unopened package re: holding fee and 14 day limit...D returned, C tried to sue for holding fee
- DILLON LJ: if one condition in a set of printed conditions is particularly onerous or unusual, the party seeking to enforce it must show that that condition was fairly brought to the attention of the other party in the most explicit way; term not incorporated into contract but C got a small restitutionary charge
|
|
|
J SPURLING LTD v BRADSHAW (1956) (incorporation of terms; previous course of dealings)
|
- parties had contract for many years for storage of goods in warehouse; on one occasion D delivered 8 barrels of OJ; few days later D received document from C acknowledging receipt of OJ; also contained clause purporting to exempt claimant from liability for loss or damage occasioned by negligence wrongful act or default of the company and its employees or agents; D collected barrels, some were empty, some had dirty water; refused to pay storage and C sued;
- although document containing exclusion clause not received until after contract formed, held that clause was incorporated to contract as result of regular course of dealings between parties over the years; since D had consistently received similar documents on previous occasions without complaint or renegotiation, D was bound by terms contained
|
|
|
‘The Suisse Atlantique’ [1967] (exclusion clause, fundamental breach)
|
- fundamental breach is not a rule of law, it is a matter of construction; "Whether such breach or breaches do constitute a fundamental breach depends on the construction of the contract and on all the facts and circumstances of the case."
- shipping case, charterers taking too much time to load and unload ship resulting in less trips being made, and owners of ship were to be paid on basis of trips made; ship was to be loaded at specific rate, owners said slowness resulted in less trips being made
|
|
|
PHOTO PRODUCTION v SECURICOR TRANSPORT (1980) (exclusion clause, fundamental breach)
|
- C contracted with D on D's standard terms to provide night patrol at factory; exclusion clause in standard terms; one of D's guards lit a fire inside factory, it got out of control and destroyed factory
- HoL, although D in breach it was allowed to rely on exclusion clause because clause clearly and unambiguously covered the breach that had occurred...this overruled the CoA that had held D liable under FUNDAMENTAL BREACH doctrine since breach was so serious that it effectively breaches whole contract and the clause does not apply
|
|
|
GEORGE MITCHELL v FINNEY LOCK SEEDS [1983] (fundamental breach, exclusion clauses, reasonableness)
|
- crappy seeds bought by C, contract had clause that limited liability to price of seed; was limitation reasonable under UCTA and did clause cover seeds sold
- Court of Appeal held that the clause was unreasonable as the buyer would not have been aware of the fault whereas the seller would. The House of Lords unanimously upheld the judgment of Lord Denning MR, that the limitation of liability to the cost of the seeds was not effective. Because given the relative positions and capability of insurance, it failed the reasonableness test. i twould not be "fair or reasonable" to allow D to rely upon the exclusion clause. Per Lord Denning M.R.: the ultimate question in exclusion clause cases was, to what extent would it be fair and reasonable to allow a party to rely on the exclusion clause?
|
|
|
White and Carter (Councils) Ltd v McGregor [1961] (anticipatory breach)
|
- C contracted to display advertisements of D’s garage company for three years on litter bins. The same day McGregor said they no longer wished to be on bins. White & Carter (Councils) Ltd refused cancellation and displayed the ads, and brought an action for the price.
- C can recover; Where a party is in renunciatory breach of contract, the other party is not bound to accept the breach and sue for damages, but may perform its own obligations under the contract and claim what is due under the contract.
|
|
|
|
- causation
- remoteness
- mitigation of loss
- basis for calculation damages (performance, reliance, restitution)
|
|
|
HADLEY v BAXENDALE (1854) (damages and remoteness)
|
- C owned mill, crankshaft essential to mill broke, D hired to transport broken part to engineers to fix it; D was slow in transport, delaying arrival of new part, mill stood inoperative, C sought damages to compensate for loss
- D not made aware of mill being inoperable and of only 1 part, loss was too remote and not recoverable;
- test: common knowledge/ordinary course of things/loss arises naturally from breach of contract, implicitly within foresight of parties OR actual knowledge/reasonably within contemplation of both parties at time of contract formation/abnormal loss, requirement of special knowledge/awareness
|
|
|
VICTORIA LAUNDRY LTD v NEWMAN INDUSTRIES [1949] (remoteness, loss within contemplation of the parties)
|
- C ran laundry business bought boiler from D due for delivery by July; boiler damaged, needed repairs, delayed until November; C had made D aware of need for boiler to expand business and for immediate use, claimed damages to represent loss of ordinary profits resulting from business expansion and government contract they had lost
- C could recover damages of additional profit but not for lost contract with government; D was only aware of business expansion needs and so reasonably foreseeable consequence but D not aware of government contract
|
|
|
The Heron II [1969] (remoteness, loss within contemplation of the parties)
|
- C chartered Heron 2 for sugar transport that would take 20 days but ended up taking 29 days, price of sugar fell dramatically during that time, late arrival put D in breach so C sought to cover difference in price of sugar he received; C had not told D about intention of selling sugar at destination but D was aware of sugar on board and of destination being popular sugar sale place
- HoL held that even though C had not told D of intention to sell sugar, D's knowledge of carrying sugar + destination as popular sugar trading spot was sufficient and so probable to be within contemplation of contract at the time
|
|
|
FARLEY v SKINNER [2002] (loss of non-pecuniary kind)
|
- C bought house near Gatwick, had surveyor look into noise who said it was okay; reality: noise level intolerable at 6am; specific provision about peacefulness of property in contract re: surveyor
- C recovered £10,000 for distress, peace of mind
|
|
|
Jarvis v Swans Tours [1973]; Jackson v HorizonHolidays [1975] (loss of enjoyment, privity)
|
- Jarvis: 2 week holiday specific features that were not good or absent, holiday company in clear breach for failing to provide; C recovered for loss of enjoyment as purpose of holiday is enjoyment
- Jackson: family holiday in his name only, holiday was terrible for a lot of reasons, sued holiday company on his behalf and family behalf; company disputed paying family as not party to contract; CoA held disappointment by family was loss to Jackson himself and awarded damages for whole family
|
|
|
|
- PERFORMANCE INTEREST Ruxley Electronics and Construction v Forsyth [1995]
- RELIANCE INTEREST Anglia Television v Reed [1972]
|
|
|
THE UNFAIR CONTRACT TERMS ACT 1977 cases
|
St Albans City and District Council v ICL [1995] Stevenson v Rogers [1999]
Feldaroll Foundry plc v Hermes Leasing (London) Ltd [2004]
Salvage Association v CAP Financial Services Ltd [1995]
Photo Production Ltd v Securicor Transport Ltd [1980]
Smith v Eric Bush [1990]
Phillips Products v Hyland [1987]
Thompson v T Lohan (Plant Hire) Ltd [1987]
MEANING OF REASONABLENESS George Mitchell (Chesterhall) Ltd v Finney Lock Seeds [1983]
Watford Electronic Ltd v Sanderson CFL Ltd[2001]
Lease Management v Purnell Secretarial Services [1994]
|
|
|
EXPRESS TERMS, more cases
|
- Head v Tattersall (1871)
- Schuler v Wickman Machine Tool Sales Ltd [1973]
- Poussard v Spiers and Pond (1876)
- Bettini v Gye (1876)
- ReMoore and Landauer (1921)
- Maredelanto Compania Naviera v Bergbau-Handel (‘The Mihalis-Angelis’)[1970]
- Lombard North Central v Butterworth [1987]
- Hong Kong Fir Shipping v Kawasaki Kishen Kaisha [1962
- Cehave NV v Bremer Handelsgesellschaft ‘(the Hansa Nord’) [1975]
- Torvald Klaveness v Arni Shipping Corporation (‘The Gregos’)[1994]
- Bremer Handelsgesellschaft v Vanden-Avenne-Izegem[1978]
- A/S Awilco Fulvia spa di Navigazione (‘The Chikuma’) [1981]
- Bunge Corporate v Tradax Export SA [1981]
|
|
|
BREACH OF CONTRACT, more cases
|
- Photo Production Ltd v Securicor Transport Ltd [1980]
- Bridge v Campbell Discount Co Ltd [1962]
- Omnium D’Enterprises v Sutherland [1919]
- Hong Kong Fir Shipping CoLtd v Kawasaki Kisen Kaisha [1962]
- Decro Wall International SA v Practitioners of Marketing Ltd [1971]
- Torvald KlavenessA/S v Arni Maritime Corp ‘The Gregos’ [1994]
- Federal Commerce and Navigation v Molena Alpha [1979]
- Woodar Investments v Wimpey Construction [1980]
- Fercometal SARL v Mediterranean Shipping Co SA ‘The Simone’ [1988]
- Yukong Line of Korea vRendsburg Investment [1996]
- State Trading Corp of India v M Golodetz Ltd [1989]
- Vitol SA v Norelf Ltd [1996]
- Hochester v De la Tour (1853)
- White and Carter (Councils) Ltd v McGregor[1962]
- Clea Shipping Corporation v Bulk Oil International Ltd ‘The Alaskan Trader’ [1984]
- Golden Strait Corporation v Nippon Yusen Kaisha (‘The Golden Victory’) [2005]
|
