Richco International Ltd v Alfred C. Toepfer International G.m.b.H. (Bonde)
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 23 May 1990 |
| Date | 23 May 1990 |
| Court | Queen's Bench Division |
Before Mr Justice Potter
Queen's Bench Division
Shipping - FOB contract - buyer liable for carrying time
Buyers were liable to pay carrying charges in respect of the time taken by sellers loading a vessel in excess of the loading time permitted in the contract.
Mr Justice Potter so held in a reserved judgment in the Commercial Court of the Queen's Bench Division in dismissing an appeal brought by the plaintiff buyers, Richco International Ltd, against the award of the Board of Appeal of the Grain and Feed Association (GAFTA), dated January 4, 1990 by which the board awarded to the defendant sellers, Alfred C Toepfer International, US$141,750 plus interest, on appeal from an arbitration award dated August 10, 1989 in favour of the buyers.
Mr Mark Havelock-Allan for the plaintiffs; Mr Richard Wood for the defendants.
MR JUSTICE POTTER said that the matter arose out of a FOB contract for the sale of 30,000 metric tonnes of Saudi Arabian wheat to be delivered FOB stowed and trimmed Damman for shipment April 20/May 20 1988.
On May 20, 1988 the last day of the shipment period, the buyers claimed a 21-day extension of the delivery period in accordance with clause 8 of the GAFTA Agreement 1964.
Loading commenced on May 29 and was completed on June 10. That was within the extended delivery period, but the sellers did not achieve the guaranteed loading rate of 3,000 metric tonnes per weather working day of 24 hours agreed in the brokers' sale confirmation contract.
There was no issue in the arbitration as to the loading time or the demurrage payable by the sellers for the excess time used.
However, the sellers claimed that the buyers were liable to pay carrying charges for the 21-day period between May 21 and June 10 at US$0.25 a day totalling US$141,750.
The buyers rejected the carrying charges claimed and the sellers referred the matter to arbitration. The buyers submitted to the board, inter alia, that they should not be liable to the sellers for carrying charges in respect of any period when loading was delayed through the sellers' inability to load at the guaranteed loading rate.
The buyers put the legal basis of their challenge, inter alia, in the following way.
They said the sellers could not recover carrying charges for the time taken in loading the vessel after the permitted loading time because they were entitled to recover as damages for breach...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Petroplus Marketing AG v Shell Trading International Ltd
...displaced by express contractual provision or by the parties' intention to be understood from the express terms: Richco International Ltd. v Alfred C. Toepfer International GMBH, [1991] 1 Lloyd's LR 136, 144. 18 Petroplus submitted that the principle does not apply here. There are three str......
- BDW Trading Ltd (t/a Barratt North London) v JM Rowe (Investments) Ltd
-
K Line PTE Ltd v Priminds Shipping (HK) Company Ltd “Eternal Bliss”
...for all the consequences of the charterer's failure to load or unload within the laytime, as Mr Justice Potter held in The Bonde [1991] 1 Lloyd's Rep 136, or only some of them, as Mr Justice Andrew Baker held in this 2 That issue arises because, in circumstances where the charterer committ......
-
IBM United Kingdom Holdings Ltd and Another v Stuart Dalgleish and Others
...of the relevant agreement." 111 Mr Newman also refers to [35] where Patten LJ refers to the judgment of Potter J in Richco International v Alfred C. Toepfer International [1991] 1 Lloyd's Rep. 136. Referring to the statement of the principle in Chitty on Contracts (30 th ed) at 12.082 which......
-
The Availability Of Damages In Addition To Demurrage
...delay to the ship through failure to complete loading or discharging within the laytime allowed by the charter" [88]. In The Bonde [1991] 1 Lloyd's Rep. 136, however, Potter J had found that in order to recover damages in addition to demurrage it is a requirement that the owner demonstrates......
-
An analysis of the one breach, two kinds of loss scenario in terms of the demurrage
...the presumption more logical, it is important to categorize the position by asking whether there is 72 [2020] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 419 73 [1991] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 136 74 [1966] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 529 75 [1968] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 379, 383 17 a separate breach or whether there is a separate loss. 76 Given the......