So, for example, in the famous case of [ case ](see also 11.3.2), where the charterparty contained no such express provision, the owners were fighting a lost cause in arguing that the spirit of the deal was that the charterers should make so many regular and punctual voyages across the Atlantic. According to the charter, the charterers were required to pay agreed damages (demurrage) if they exceeded the specified (lay) days allowed in port for loading and unloading the vessel; and this is precisely what the charterers did. The fact that they did this rather than pay the freight rates that the owners expected to earn on the contract, and the fact that they did this in self-serving response to the market conditions did not amount to a breach of contract. Certainly, this was a self-interested performance of the contract; it was not co-operative; but it could not be corrected by an implied term.
Answer
Suisse Atlantique Societe d'Armament Maritime v Rotterdamsche Kolen Centrale [1967] 1 AC 361
Tags
#contract #law #terms
Question
So, for example, in the famous case of [ case ](see also 11.3.2), where the charterparty contained no such express provision, the owners were fighting a lost cause in arguing that the spirit of the deal was that the charterers should make so many regular and punctual voyages across the Atlantic. According to the charter, the charterers were required to pay agreed damages (demurrage) if they exceeded the specified (lay) days allowed in port for loading and unloading the vessel; and this is precisely what the charterers did. The fact that they did this rather than pay the freight rates that the owners expected to earn on the contract, and the fact that they did this in self-serving response to the market conditions did not amount to a breach of contract. Certainly, this was a self-interested performance of the contract; it was not co-operative; but it could not be corrected by an implied term.
Answer
?
Tags
#contract #law #terms
Question
So, for example, in the famous case of [ case ](see also 11.3.2), where the charterparty contained no such express provision, the owners were fighting a lost cause in arguing that the spirit of the deal was that the charterers should make so many regular and punctual voyages across the Atlantic. According to the charter, the charterers were required to pay agreed damages (demurrage) if they exceeded the specified (lay) days allowed in port for loading and unloading the vessel; and this is precisely what the charterers did. The fact that they did this rather than pay the freight rates that the owners expected to earn on the contract, and the fact that they did this in self-serving response to the market conditions did not amount to a breach of contract. Certainly, this was a self-interested performance of the contract; it was not co-operative; but it could not be corrected by an implied term.
Answer
Suisse Atlantique Societe d'Armament Maritime v Rotterdamsche Kolen Centrale [1967] 1 AC 361
If you want to change selection, open original toplevel document below and click on "Move attachment"
Parent (intermediate) annotation
Open it So, for example, in the famous case of Suisse Atlantique Societe d'Armament Maritime v Rotterdamsche Kolen Centrale [1967] 1 AC 361 (see also 11.3.2), where the charterparty contained no such express provision, the owners were fighting a lost cause in arguing that the spirit of the deal was that the charterers shou
Original toplevel document (pdf)
cannot see any pdfs
Summary
status
not learned
measured difficulty
37% [default]
last interval [days]
repetition number in this series
0
memorised on
scheduled repetition
scheduled repetition interval
last repetition or drill
Details
No repetitions
Discussion
Do you want to join discussion? Click here to log in or create user.