“In a cargo misdelivery claim, the unpaid claimant bank holding B/Ls as security, defeated the carrier's argument that the bills had become 'spent' by the time the bank acquired possession. Neither the charterer/seller ordering discharge nor the buyer/receiver of the cargo was entitled to delivery under the bills. Such a delivery was not therefore capable of causing bills to be spent ('Erin Schulte' case considered). Nor did the bank's grant of the loan, with knowledge of the delivery without bills, constitute its authorisation or consent to the carrier.”

“Just before the 1-year time bar in 2014, Alba commenced cargo claim proceedings against MSC. In 2018, MSC (who had counterclaimed for cargo disposal) applied to strike out the claim because Alba failed to apply for a CMC by the deadline set in the CPR. Despite finding the 4-and-a-half-year delay inordinate and inexcusable, the Court declined to strike out, as serious prejudice had not been caused to MSC, nor had a fair trial been prejudiced. Relevant factors were the absence of intentional delay or wholesale disregard of the CPR. Nevertheless, despite the usual conditions not being satisfied but to reflect Alba's "serious default", the Court ordered it to secure MSC's costs.”

“In 2010 Goknur and OV entered an agreement whereby OV would purchase from Goknur 'not from concentrate' ('NFC') fruit juice for a period of 3 years. The following year, OV claimed that some batches did not comply with the NFC description and sought damages, including for loss of profit, on the basis of both breach of contract and misrepresentation. The Court found that the juice at the time of supply did not meet the 'NFC' requirement, placing Goknur in breach of contract. However, the misrepresentation claim failed, the judge finding that it was an innocent misrepresentation, and remarking that anyway tortious damages would not extend to loss of profit. The loss of profit claim also failed on the contractual basis, the judge finding that unavailability to OV of an alternative source of NFC juice (of particular provenance) for its customers was not within the contemplation of the parties.”

“As part of a complex corporate transaction, the Claimant was to provide an Assignment to the Bank, by way of security. It emerged some years later that it had omitted to do so therefore it issued 2 deeds in favour of the Bank with the effect of replacing the missing security but also imposing additional, onerous obligations on the Claimant. The High Court found that the additional obligations were the result of a common mistake (both subjectively and objectively) and ordered rectification of the deeds. The Bank appealed arguing that the sole test was an objective one, and moreover one going to the legal rather than mere commercial effect of the agreement. The CA disagreed, ruling that a subjective common mistake as to legal consequences was sufficient — and established — although the objective test was also met. Relevant factors in both were that this was not a new agreement, the commercial absurdity of gratuitously taking on additional obligations and the absence of discussion about such a radical modification to the previous arrangements.”

“Under a bareboat charter Guarantee, charterers' parent guaranteed, as primary obligors, charterers' performance of and payments under the charter and undertook to pay "any amount(s) demanded up to ...US$3,000,000... on demand notwithstanding any dispute between [owners and charterers]. The Court found that the Guarantor was liable even if the underlying liability (and not just quantum, as argued) was in dispute.”

“The Buyer cancelled an aircraft purchase contract, alleging Seller's breach of warranty of title (the Seller intending to acquire the aircraft with completion funds from the Buyer). In dismissing the Buyer's claim for return of the holding deposit, the Court found that the warranty as to title only applied at the time of delivery, thus the Seller was not obliged to produce title documents prior to that. In cancelling, the Buyer was in repudiatory breach such that its complaint that the Seller failed to have the aircraft at the delivery location must also fail.”