Archives: Ship Sale and Purchase

Subscribe to Ship Sale and Purchase RSS Feed

‘Shipper’ proves it was not the shipper and avoids claim for cargo explosion: MVV Environment Devonport Ltd v. NTO Shipping GmbH & Co. KG MS Nortrader [2020] EWHC 1371 (Comm), “MV NORTRADER”

Summary The claimant was named as shipper on a bill of lading for a consignment of cargo on the MV Nortrader, despite not being a party to the contract of carriage. The defendant, the owner of the vessel, suffered losses after a cargo explosion occurred on board the vessel shortly after the cargo had been … Continue Reading

Part 2 – Take care before crossing the Rubicon

In an alert last year, we looked at payment obligations under English law and how payment instruments commonly referred to as ‘guarantees’ may be misleading. This is despite their being crucial components to security in a commercial context. The recent decision of the English Commercial court, Shanghai Shipyard Co Ltd. v. Reignwood International Investment (Group) Company [2020] EWHC … Continue Reading

Safe-berth clauses bind to a warranty of safety: The U.S. Supreme Court brings into agreement U.S. and English law

CITGO Asphalt Refining Co. et al. v. Frescati Shipping Co., Ltd. et al. On March 30, 2020, the U.S. Supreme Court held that “the plain language of the parties’ safe-berth clause establishes a warranty of safety.” The decision brings U.S. law into alignment with the long-standing position under English law, as established by Leeds Shipping … Continue Reading

CASE NOTE UPDATE: Firodi Shipping Limited v Griffon Shipping LLC [2013] EWCA Civ 1567

On 10 December, the Court of Appeal upheld the judgment of Mr Justice Teare in Griffon Shipping LLC v Firodi Shipping Limited [2013] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 50, a matter involving a seller’s remedy in the event of non-payment of the deposit under the terms of the Norwegian Saleform 1993 form (NSF 1993), dismissing the appellant … Continue Reading

Norwegian Saleform 1993 – Seller Beware!

In a recent client alert, Adam Morgan comments on the High Court’s decision in Dalmare SpA v Union Maritime Ltd and another (The “Union Power”). This case was summarised in a previous post, and considered the issue of whether a term as to satisfactory quality was to be implied into the Norwegian Saleform 1993. The … Continue Reading

A term as to satisfactory quality is to be implied into Norwegian Saleform 1993 by way of section 14 of the Sale of Goods Act 1979

In Dalmare SpA v Union Maritime Ltd (The “Union Power”), the court was required to decide whether a term as to satisfactory quality was to be implied into an MOA on the Norwegian Saleform 1993. The MOA provided at clause 11 that the vessel was to be “delivered and taken over as she was at … Continue Reading

Court of Appeal rules on the interpretation of clauses 11 and 14 of the Norwegian Saleform 1993

In Polestar Maritime Ltd v YHM Shipping Co Ltd (The Rewa), the buyer of a vessel appealed against a decision that it had not been entitled to cancel a MOA and was liable in damages for breach of contract for refusing to complete the transaction. The sale contract was on an amended Norwegian Saleform 1993. … Continue Reading
LexBlog