A COA between MUR as owners and RTI provided for monthly shipments of bauxite, and payments in USD. A Force Majeure Clause allowed suspension of performance in case of defined events which “cannot be overcome by reasonable endeavors from the Party affected”. When RTI’s parent became US-sanctioned, MUR relied on the Clause, contending it could not receive payments. RTI challenged, based on its offer to pay in EUR. The SC agreed with the High Court ruling that “reasonable endeavours” could not encompass non-contractual performance (i.e. EUR instead of USD). MUR was entitled to rely on the Clause.

In 2017 Viterra sold peas and lentils to Sharp, on C&FFO Mundra (and Gafta 24) terms; payment cash against documents, with Viterra’s right to re-sell in the event of default. The goods arrived from Vancouver in June 2017 but Sharp failed to pay. By the time Viterra re-gained possession of the warehoused goods (in Feb 2018) to re-sell, the Mundra prices had risen sharply (due to new local import tariffs). The GAFTA board based Viterra’s damages (some USD5m) on the high comparator of the Feb 2018 C&FFO Mundra price. The matter eventually reached the SC which found that GAFTA erred in so doing and the compensatory principle of damages and the doctrine of mitigation both required that the comparator should be the local ex-warehouse price and not the international import price; in other words, Viterra should not have the benefit of the price-hike.

Following seizure of the “Polar” by Somali pirates, Owners paid a USD7m ransom, which they sought to recover from Cargo by way of GA contribution. Cargo argued that the C/P War Risk scheme and GoA clause, created an insurance ‘fund’ to be used by Owners in the event of piracy, precluding Owners from seeking reimbursement from Charterers (save as to premia), and that the same scheme was incorporated into the B/L, relieving Cargo from contribution obligations. The SC (upholding Courts below) ruled that the effect of incorporation was that Cargo had no responsibility for premia and were not relieved of the obligation to contribute.

Mrs Philipp claimed against her bank, having fallen victim to an 'authorised push payment' ('APP') fraud, whereby she authorised payments totalling £700k to fraudsters' various international a/cs. The SC, restoring the 1st instance judgment, confirmed the bank's duty to carry out its customer's instructions with reasonable care and skill, disobeying them if reasonable grounds for believing fraudulent agency involved. Where, as here, the instructions came directly from the customer (a feature of APP fraud), the bank might have the right - but had no duty - to disobey such instructions.