law
"...... the shipowners' undertaking to tender a seaworthy ship, has as a result of numerous decisions as to what can amount to 'unseaworthiness', become one of the most complex of contractual undertakings. It embraces obligations with respect to every part of the hull and machinery, stores and equipment and the crew itself. It can be broken by the presence of trivial defects easily and rapidly remedial, as well as by defects which must inevitably result in a total loss of the vessel." per Diplock LJ in The Hong Kong Fir Shipping case [1962] 2 QB 26 (CA). In the Hong Kong Fir Shipping Co.,Ltd v. Kawasaki Kisen Kaisha Ltd case the principals were indeed fundamental. The plaintiffs (owners) had chartered the Hong Kong Fir to the defendants (charterers) for twenty-four months from delivery to the charterers in Liverpool. The vessel was delivered in Liverpool on February 13th 1957. The vessel then started it voyage to America to get a cargo of coal. It then left for Osaka and was delayed by five weeks due to the repairs needed on the engine. On arrival to Osaka the vessel was found to need more repairs due to the vessel being in very bad condition, and was worke
The law Commission believed that damages would normally be adequate for non-consumers. In these circumstances, the right to terminate for the slightest breach could be unfair for the seller whose loss might far exceed the cost of remedying the defect. So as you can see the Judgment in the Hong Kong Fir case was not unique, it was called for from all sections of the law. In this case the defendants had chartered the ship from the plaintiffs. It was a term of contract that the ship was seaworthy. In fact the ship was unseaworthy, owing to the combination of an aging engine and an less than adequate engine room staff. This led to the repeated need to stop for repairs. there was a definite breach of contract and the defendants would have been entitled to bring an action for damages. instead the elected to terminate the contract. the plaintiff claimed that alough they(the plaintiffs) were in breach of contract, the breach was not one which entitled the defendants to terminate,and that, therefore, the defendants had repudiated the contract by wrongful termination.
Some common words found in the essay are:
Diplock LJ, September Charterers, Kong Fir, Lord Wilberforce, Law Commission, Liverpool February, SEA ASSIGNMENT, Tradex SA1981, House Lords, Kaisha Ltd, diplock lj, kong fir, terminate contract, hong kong fir, hong kong, contract ship, breach term, breach contract, kong fir shipping, action damages, engine staff, lj hong, lj hong kong, diplock lj hong,
Approximate Word count = 1557
Approximate Pages = 6 (250 words per page double spaced)
|
