Embed Size (px)
DESCRIPTION
117626472v1. MOAs - Recent Issues David Pitlarge Partner Marine, Trade & Energy. 1.Introduction: S&P Market. Current issues: S&P Market Case law: condition on delivery; the right to claim in full deposit New forms (SSF 2011 and NSF 2012). 2.Condition on Delivery. The scenario: - PowerPoint PPT Presentation
Citation preview
117626472v1
MOAs - Recent Issues
David PitlargePartner
Marine, Trade & Energy
1. Introduction: S&P Market
Current issues:
– S&P Market
– Case law: condition on delivery; the right to claim in full deposit
– New forms (SSF 2011 and NSF 2012)
2. Condition on DeliveryThe scenario:
•Ship purchased with defects – to what extent can buyer claim?
•“Claim”: damages or a right of rejection, or both.
3. Condition on Delivery
• Conventional ways of claiming:
• The words of the contract:– Not as was when inspected– Not Class maintained– Not free of average damage affecting Class
• Misrepresentation
4. Condition on DeliveryThe problem:
•Substantial defects do not necessarily trigger liabilities under the NSF wording itself.
•Misrepresentation could be an answer: but various obstacles.
5. Condition on Delivery
• Sale of Goods Act 1979:
– S.14(2) Implied terms that goods are of satisfactory quality
– S.14(2A)What the “reasonable person” regards as satisfactory, in view of price and all other relevant circumstances
– S.14(2B)State and condition: other aspects, fitness for purpose, safety, durability
6. Condition on Delivery• Sale of Goods Act:
– S.55 Exclusion of implied terms
– S.55(1) “Where a right duty or liability would arise…byimplication of law, it may… be negatived or
varied by express agreement, or by the course of dealing … or by usage...”
7. Condition on Delivery“The Union Power [2012] EWHC 3537
•Facts: 1994 built tanker; sold 2009; NSF, 93; crankpin bearing failed; ovality in crankpin
•Material term:“taken over as she was at the time of inspection” (NSF ’93, cl. 11)
•Issue: Did S.14(2) apply? Was it negatived?•Decision: S.14(2) applied: “as she was” (or
even “as is/where is”) does not disarm S.14(2)
•Reaction: Some hostility and concern
8. Condition on DeliveryLooking forward from the Union Power
•SSF 2011: “free from damage affecting class” – no reference to average damage.•NSF 2012
– Current/anticipated usage– Entire agreement clause: is it sufficient?– “any terms implied… by any statute are hereby excluded to the
extent they can legally be made…”
9. Condition on Delivery
• Entire agreement clause NSF 2012 (cl. 18) – S.14(2) term is a condition
– See the “Mercini Lady” [2011] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 442 – clear words needed to exclude conditions.
– Set against this, Transworld Limited -v- Bombardier Inc. [2012] EWHC 243 – “condition” not mentioned.
10. The Deposit
• In the event of the failure to pay the deposit, and the Buyer not proceeding with the contract, can the Seller claim the full deposit, or is his claim limited to actual losses?
11. The Deposit• Starting point: Buyers’ default clause (e.g. NSF ’93
cl.13)
“Should the Deposit not be paid… the Sellers have the right to cancel this Agreement, and they shall be entitled to claim compensation for their losses and for all expenses incurred together with interest.”
“Should the Purchase Price not be paid… Sellers have the right to cancel this Agreement, in which case the deposit, together with any interest earned, if any, shall be released to the Sellers.”
12. The Deposit
• But, consider the following:
2. “ DepositAs security for the correct fulfilment of this Agreement, the
Buyers shall pay a deposit of 10%... within 3 banking
days after this Agreement is signed…”
13. The Deposit
• Assume Sellers’ losses are significantly smaller than the deposit.
• General assumption in certain quarters that Sellers’ rights are limited to their actual losses.
14. The Deposit
• On these terms, Court currently favours Sellers: Griffon Shipping LLC -v- Firodi Shipping Limited [2013] EWHC 593
– Sellers’ right to claim the deposit as a debt– Clause 13 does not deprive Sellers of that right – there are
implied terms to this effect – Courts’ construction more consistent with business common-
sense
15. The Deposit
• Looking forward – NSF 2012 is not an answer to this: material terms are the same.
• SSF 2011 does, however, deal with the situation“[Sellers]… shall be entitled to claim compensation for their losses and expenses (but with no automatic right to compensation in the amount of the deposit.)”
For further information please contact:
David Pitlarge - Partner Hill Dickinson
Direct Dial +44 (0)20 7280 9251
Email [email protected]
Fax +44 (0)20 7283 1144
Website www.hilldickinson.com
