Reardon Smith Line Ltd v Australian Wheat Board (Houston City)
Jurisdiction | UK Non-devolved |
Judgment Date | 1956 |
Date | 1956 |
Year | 1956 |
Court | Privy Council |
-
- This document is available in original version only for vLex customers
View this document and try vLex for 7 days - TRY VLEX
- This document is available in original version only for vLex customers
26 cases
- Vardinoyannis v Egyptian General Petroleum Corporation (Evaggelos Th.)
-
Kodros Shipping Corporation v Empresa Cubana de Fletes (No. 2) (Evia)
...(1955) 2 Queen's Bench 68. 18 The absence of navigational aids such as a hauling-off buoy or waling-piece, see The Houston City (1956) Appeal Cases 266. 19 The lack of reliable holding ground in the anchorage area, see The Eastern City (1958) 2 Lloyd's Law Reports 127. 20 The absence of an ......
-
Barclays Bank Plc v Fairclough Building Ltd
...[1895] 2 QB 640. Nance v British Columbia Electric Railway Co LtdELR [1951] AC 601. Reardon Smith Line Ltd v Australian Wheat BoardELR [1956] AC 266. Rowe v Turner Hopkins & Partners [1980] 2 NZLR 550. Sayers v Harlow Urban District CouncilWLR [1958] 1 WLR 623. Schering Agrochemicals Ltd v ......
-
Aegean Sea Traders Corporation v Repsol Petroleo SA ('The Aegean Sea') [QBD (Admiralty)]
...[1988] 1 Ll Rep 412 Prometheus, TheUNK [1974] 1 Ll Rep 350 Reardon Smith Line Ltd v Australian Wheat Board (“The Houston City”)ELR [1956] AC 266 Reardon Smith Line Ltd v Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries & FoodELR [1962] 1 QB 42 Sagona, TheUNK [1984] 1 Ll Rep 194 Sheffield Corp v BarclayEL......
Request a trial to view additional results
4 books & journal articles
-
CONTRACT DAMAGES AND THE PROMISEE'S ROLE IN ITS OWN LOSS.
...(117) Hadley (n 114) 43 (Winn LJ). (118) The Stork (n 114) 77, cited with approval in Reardon Smith Line Ltd v Australian Wheat Board [1956] AC 266, 282 (Lord Somervell for the Court), Simonius Vischer (n 70) 347 (Samuels JA) and Barclays Bank plc v Fairclough Building Ltd [1995] QB 214, 22......
-
Carriage of Goods by Charterparty
...its destination. 131 Usually within a limited range of ports. 132 Rcardon Smith Line v. Australian Wheat Board (The Houston City), [1956] A.C. 266 (EC.). 133 Or discharging. 134 E.g., GENCON, above note 123, cl.l. 386 MARITIME LAW from the charterer for breach of contract.135 The time at wh......
-
THE SAFE PORT PROMISE OF CHARTERERS FROM THE PERSPECTIVE OF THE ENGLISH COMMON LAW
...good navigation and seamanship”. 77 The Mary Lou, supra n 5, at 279, per Mustill J; The Eastern City, supra n 38. 78 The Houston City [1956] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 1(HL). 79 The Alhambra, supra n 49; Hall Bros Steamship Co Ltd v R & W Paul Ltd, supra n 50. 80 Knutsford (SS) Ltd v Tillmanns & Co [190......
-
NOMINATION OF PORTS BY THE VOYAGE CHARTERER
...port obligation applies in a like manner to voyage charterparties. SeeReardon Smith Line v. Australian Wheat Board (The Houston City)[1956] A.C. 266, at p. 282; Batis Maritime Corporation v. Petroleos del Mediterraneo S.A. (The Batis)[1990] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 345; see also Baker, “The Safe Port......