“In the context of the avian flu epidemic of 2015 R, a US supplier of egg products, contracted with N to fulfil, over two years, R's supply commitments. In light of an agreed but suspicious increase in the sale price and alleged failure to meet required US standards, R suspended performance, causing N to claim loss of profit damages. The first instance judge dismissed the quality issue but granted R rescission on the grounds of N's fraudulent misrepresentation as to prices. The CA dismissed N's appeal based on the test of inducement, drawing a distinction between fraudulent and non-fraudulent misrepresentation: the test in the former is less rigorous, as there is no requirement for the representee to show that he would not have entered into the contract but for the representation, it being sufficient that the fraud was "actively present to his mind".”

“Under a contract for sale and purchase of a vessel, with an NSF type "encumbrances clause" (9), Sellers disputed liability to pay a bunker claim incurred by prior bareboat sub-charters. After the (post-delivery) arrest of the vessel in the Philippines, Buyers settled the claim and started arbitration proceedings seeking an indemnity from Sellers. The tribunal found that the claim in itself did not give rise to a breach of clause 9, as it was not an in rem debt against the vessel (and bareboat sub-charterers had no authority to create a lien); however, the pre-delivery issue by them of an (un-served and unknown to Sellers) in rem writ in Singapore did place Sellers in breach of clause 9, rendering them liable to indemnify Buyers.”

“The Court upheld the first instance decision that article IV r2(b) exempts the carrier from liability if the fire was caused deliberately or barratrously (meaning without the actual fault or privity of the carrier). The appellants tried in vain to infer that barratry would be incompatible with fault or neglect of the crew (here the chief engineer) but the Court found no basis for justifying such conclusion.”

“A charterparty on an amended NYPE form contained an additional clause prohibiting deductions from hire of amounts for underperformance, except undisputed off-hire. The Tribunal held that this did not allow equitable set-off unless agreed by owners which was not the case. Charterers' argument that they were suspending rather than deducting hire was also dismissed as a meaningless distinction.”

“Following a grounding on leaving a port, cargo interests contested Owners' claim for GA and salvage contribution. The Court found that Owners' passage plan was defective and the Master's decision to leave the fairway was imprudent. The former was held to be the operative cause, such that the Vessel was unseaworthy pursuant to Art. III r.1., depriving the Owners of an Art. IV r. 2 (a) defence and their claim to contribution. Although irrelevant to the outcome, the Judge dismissed cargo interests' argument that following "Volcafe", the burden of dis-proving causative unseaworthiness under Art. III r.1 lay on the carrier, stating that in his judgment, that decision was restricted to Art. III r.2.”

“The performance clause in a trip time charter (South Africa to China) defined good weather as "wind speeds of maximum beaufort force 4 (11-16knots) and total-combined (sea and swell) significant wave height confined to limits of douglas sea state 3 (0.5-1.25 meters)". Despite acknowledging the uncertainty of the terminology and the difficulty in reconciling two entirely different measures of sea condition, the Tribunal found that there would be no contradiction if good weather criteria were restricted to significant wave heights of no more than 1.25 m, even though this might render DSS3 surplusage and lower the required performance standard to something less than might be expected in charters of this nature.”