Congimex Companhia Geral de Comercio Importadora e Exportadora S.A.R.L. v Tradax Export S.A.

JurisdictionEngland & Wales
JudgeTHE MASTER OF THE ROLLS
Judgment Date18 November 1982
Judgment citation (vLex)[1982] EWCA Civ J1118-2
CourtCourt of Appeal (Civil Division)
Date18 November 1982
Docket Number82/0451

[1982] EWCA Civ J1118-2

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE

COURT OF APPEAL (CIVIL DIVISION)

ON APPEAL FROM THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE

QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION

(MR. JUSTICE STAUGHT0N)

Royal Courts of Justice.

Before:

The Master of The Rolls

(Sir John Donaldson)

Lord Justice Watkins (Not Present)

and

Lord Justice May

82/0451

Congimex Companhia Geral De Commercio
E Exportadora Sarl
Appellants
and
Tradax Export S.A.
Respondents

MR. ROGER BUCKLEY, Q.C. and MR. IAIN MILLIGAN (instructed by Messrs. Middleton Potts & Co.) appeared on behalf of the Appellants.

MR. R. NEVILLE THOMAS, Q.C. and MR. C. RUSSELL (instructed by Messrs. William A. Crump & Sons) appeared on behalf of the Respondents.

THE MASTER OF THE ROLLS
1

For the reasons set out in my own written judgment, which has been handed to counsel, this appeal will be dismissed. I understand that Lord Justice May agrees, and Lord Justice watkins authorises me to say that he also agrees.

THE MASTER OF THE ROLLS
2

This is a GAFTA appeal with a difference. It relates to import controls in Portugal in 1975 instead of to export controls in the United States in 1973.

3

The full story is admirably set out in the judgment of Mr. Justice Staughton and I need only refer to the salient facts. In July and November 1974 the appellants agreed to buy quantities of U.S./Brazilian soya bean-meal c.i.f. Lisbon free out. The contracts were on GAFTA Form 100 and were governed by English law. They were not classic c.i.f. in that they provided for an adjustment in the price upon the basis of delivered weights and, consistently with this, further provided that weighing and sampling should take place at the time and place of discharge at the port of destination, i.e. Lisbon (see clauses 16 and 17).

4

At the time when the contracts were made, the buyers were importers of 80 per cent of the soya beanmeal required by the Portuguese market and about 95 per cent of their supplies were obtained from the sellers with whom they had been trading for more than five years. The sellers knew that at least some of the soya beanmeal would be sold on to other Portuguese importers and that the buyers would generally require those importers to pay the sellers directly, any difference being settled between the sellers and the buyers. Imports and payment for them were subject to licensing and exchange controls, but the buyers had never been refused a permit and applications generally produced a permit within two days. Indeed it had been known for applications to be made and a permit granted whilst the vessel concerned was actually discharging in the port of Lisbon.

5

The sellers would not necessarily have been aware of the detailed operation of this scheme, but they would certainly have been aware that there was some import licensing and exchange control system in operation in Portugal. However, so far as they were concerned, this would have been entirely a matter for the buyers. The contracts themselves made no reference to these matters or to the buyers undertaking specific obligations with reference to impart permits or obtaining foreign exchange.

6

The blow fell when, at the beginning of January 1975, the Portuguese government decided that in future the sole importer of soya beanmeal should be IAPO, a state enterprise. Thereafter the buyers were unable to obtain a licence to import soya beanmeal or to obtain foreign currency to pay for such soya beanmeal. Indeed they could not even use foreign currency held by them abroad in payment for soya beanmeal destined for Portugal.

7

In these circumstances the buyers claimed that the contracts were frustrated and the dispute was referred to arbitration in accordance with the GAFTA rules. The umpire found partly in favour of the sellers and partly in favour of the buyers. Predictably both parties appealed to the board of appeal of GAFTA which stated it3 award in the form of a special case...

To continue reading

Request your trial
4 cases
  • Bangladesh Export Import Company Ltd v Sucden Kerry S.A.
    • United Kingdom
    • Court of Appeal (Civil Division)
    • Invalid date
  • Etablissements Soules et Cie. v Intertradex S.A.
    • United Kingdom
    • Court of Appeal (Civil Division)
    • 8 November 1990
    ...any obligation at all to the sellers to discharge the cargo in a given time, or to pay demurrage if they did not do so. 13 In Congimex v. Tradax Export SA [1981] 2 LL.R 687 [1983] 1 Ll.R 250, the question arose whether a c.i.f. contract was frustrated by a prohibition on import at the port ......
  • Ceval International Ltd v Cefetra BV
    • United Kingdom
    • Court of Appeal (Civil Division)
    • 23 November 1995
    ... ... in the judgment of Evans LJ: Congimex Companhia Geral de Comercio Importadora ra SARL v Tradax Export SAUNK [1981] 2 Ll Rep 687 ... ...
  • Bangladesh Export Import Company Ltd (Plaintiff/Appellant) v Sucden Kerry Sa (Defendants/Respondent)
    • United Kingdom
    • Court of Appeal (Civil Division)
    • 13 October 1994
    ...imported into Bangladesh. I can start with a passage from the judgment of Sir John Donaldson MR in Congimex etc. v. Tradax Export SA [1983] 1 Lloyds LR 250 at 253: "It is important to bear in mind the nature of a classic c.i.f. contract. It is a contract for the sale of documents representi......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT