Ratio: Orders were placed for the construction of ships. Ward property investments co uk buyer, the defendant, cancelled the orders. The defendants sought the loss of profit.
The claimants said they were entitled only to the repayment of instalments. The arbitrator found in favour of the purchaser. The purchaser now appealed in turn. Held: The appeal was allowed, and the arbitrator’s award re-instated. The contract provided for termination for a major breach, and liquidated damages, but that was not this situation. The parties had intended the schedule to provide a remedy additional to those that would ordinarily be available to Gearbulk on termination of the contract. The yard’s breaches amounted to a repudiation.
In such cases it is sufficient for the injured party simply to make clear that he is treating the contract as discharged . Hong Kong Fir’ and contracted to charter it to the defendants, but being late in delivering it, the defendants cancelled the charterparty contract. The plaintiffs said the repudiation was wrongful, . The parties entered an agreement to distribute and sell goods in the UK. They disagreed as to the meaning of a term governing the termination of the distributorship. Held: The court can not take into account the post-contractual conduct of the .
The court considered how to construe a clause in a contract which excluded a remedy provided by law. It is, of course, open to parties to a contract . A contract for the construction of a house gave the building owner the right to determine the contract if the rate of progress, materials or workmanship proved unsatisfactory as certified by an independent third party and the building contractor . A payment condition was just that and that a failure to pay entitled the seller to terminate at common law.
It is established law that, where one party to a contract has repudiated it, the other may validly accept that repudiation by . The claimants sought damages for repudiatory breach of three contracts to construct ships. The defendant, a waterman in the Port of London, entered into a hire-purchase contract with the claimant finance company in respect of a motor car. After the first instalment, his wages were reduced by a dock strike. He wrote with the keys and log . A ship was caught in harbour when an air raid broke out.
The master took the ship to sea where it suffered damage. Held: The shipowners were protected by a war risks clause in the charterparty agreement. As to waiver by election, Lord Goff of . The plaintiffs had contracted with the defendants for the provision of a night patrol service for their factory. The perils the parties had in mind were fire and theft.
A patrol man deliberately lit a fire which burned down the factory. The parties disputed the validity of a clause in a car hire contract relating to the consequences of a breach. The agreement had been terminated by breach rather than by the exercise of an option, so that the stipulated . When a repudiatory breach is accepted by the injured . The plaintiffs’ factory in an old mill, burned down because Wayne Tank had installed a pipeline made of unsuitable and dangerous plastic material and wrapped in heating tape attached to a useless thermostat. It had been switched on and the plant .