Measure of damages - Focused on the Chain Time-charter in the Event of Early-redelivery
1
조회
0
다운로드
0
인용
0
참고문헌
키워드
초록
Since 2007, the sublet business was regarded as an attractive model in the shipping market. The problem was, all parties should bear risks caused by a repudiatory breach of a party. The risk has been materialized due to the deep fluctuation of the market from 2008. The charterer had no choice but to throw the vessel out in lieu of the high level of hire. The worse event took place where the time-charter chain was eventually broken by the successive early-redelivery. The problem was serious because all parties should be involved in a huge claim. Especially, one of issues is the quantum of damages. The well-established way is to find the difference between the market hire and the contractual hire. This is so called, "market price rule". However, a question still remains whether or not it is appropriate to apply the rule in the case of the successive early-redelivery. Currently, the English court has applied the rule in successive early-redelivery cases. These judgments are, with respect, questionable because some significant facts would be overlooked therein. Thus, the attempt to distinguish these authorities still be expected afterwards. Given this circumstance, the paper will analyse the market price rule depending on the English law and consider the reasonableness of the rule in the successive early-redelivery events.
Abstract
Since 2007, the sublet business was regarded as an attractive model in the shipping market. The problem was, all parties should bear risks caused by a repudiatory breach of a party. The risk has been materialized due to the deep fluctuation of the market from 2008. The charterer had no choice but to throw the vessel out in lieu of the high level of hire. The worse event took place where the time-charter chain was eventually broken by the successive early-redelivery. The problem was serious because all parties should be involved in a huge claim. Especially, one of issues is the quantum of damages. The well-established way is to find the difference between the market hire and the contractual hire. This is so called, "market price rule". However, a question still remains whether or not it is appropriate to apply the rule in the case of the successive early-redelivery. Currently, the English court has applied the rule in successive early-redelivery cases. These judgments are, with respect, questionable because some significant facts would be overlooked therein. Thus, the attempt to distinguish these authorities still be expected afterwards. Given this circumstance, the paper will analyse the market price rule depending on the English law and consider the reasonableness of the rule in the successive early-redelivery events.
참고문헌 (29)
- Jill Poole, "Textbook on Contract Law, 10th edn" (2010), Oxford University Press
- Harvey McGregor, "McGregor on Damages, 18th edn" (2009), Sweet & Maxwell
- Terence Coghlin and others, "Time charters, 6th edn" (2008), Informa
- Mark Stiggelbout, "Contractual remoteness, "scope of duty" and intention", LMCLQ, 97 (2012)
- "Andrew Weir & Co v Dobell", 1 KB 722, ~ (1916)
- "Barrow v Arnaud", 115 E.R 1004, ~ (1846)
- "Bence Graphics International Ltd v Fasson (UK) Ltd", Q.B 87, ~ (1998)
- "Bulkhaul Ltd v Rhodia Organique Fine Ltd", EWCA Civ. 1452, ~ (2008)
- "Czarnikow v Koufos (The Heron II)", 1 A.C. 350, ~ (1969)
- "Dodd Properties (Kent) Ltd v Canterbury City Council", 1 W.L.R 433, ~ (1980)
- "Gloden Strait Corpn v Nippon Yusen Kubishika Kaisha (The Golden Victory)", 2 A.C. 353, ~ (2007)
- "Glory Wealth Shipping Pte Ltd v North China Shipping Ltd (The North Prince)", EWHC 1692 (Comm), ~ (2010)
- "Hadley v Baxendale", p Ex. 341；156 E.R. 145, ~ (1854)
- "Hall v Pim", 33 LI. L. Rep. 159, ~ (1928)
- "Hyundai Merchant Marine Co Ltd v Gesuri Chartering Co Ltd (The Peonia)", 1 Lloyd's Rep 100, ~ (1991)
- "Jackson v Royal Bank of Scotland", 1 W.L.R. 377, ~ (2005)
- "Koch Marine Inc. v D’Amica Societa Di Navigazione A.R.L(The Elena D’Amico)", 1 Lloyd’s Rep 75, ~ (1980)
- "Robinson v Harman", 1 Ex 850, ~ (1848)
- "Snia Societa di Navigazione Industriale et Commercio v Suzuki & Co", 18 Ll. Rep. 334, ~ (1924)
- "South Australia Asset Management Corpn v York Montague Ltd", AC 191, ~ (1997)
- "Tharros Shipping Co. Ltd and Den Norske Bank Plc v Bias Shipping Ltd A.G and Bulk Oil A.G (The Griparion) (No.2)", 1 Lloyd’s rep 533, ~ (1994)
- "Torvald Klaveness A", S v Arni Maritime Corpn (The Gregos), 1994
- "Transfield Shipping Inc v Mercator Shipping Inc (The Achilleas)", 1 A.C. 61, ~ (2009)
- "The Sales of Goods Act", ~ (1979)
- "Section 50(3)", ~
- "Section 51(3)", ~
- "Section 53(3)", ~
- "New York Produce Exchange Form", ~ (1993)
- "The Baltic Exchange"[URL]