Robertson v Amazon Tug and Lighterage Company
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 14 May 1881 |
| Date | 14 May 1881 |
| Court | Queen's Bench Division |
Queen's Bench Division
Lord Coleridge, C.J.
Robertson v. Amazon Tug and Lighterage Company Limited
Couch v. SteelUNKENR 23 L. J. 121, Q. B. 3 El. & Bl. 402
Contract Ship and shipping Agreement to perform services with instruments supplied by other party
448 MARITIME LAW CASES. Q.B. DIV.] ROBERTSON V. AMAZON TUG AND LIGHTERAGE COMPANY LIMITED. [Q.B. Div. Saturday, May 14, 1881. (Before Lord COLERIDGE, C.J.) ROBERTSON V. AMAZON TUG AND LIGHTERAGE COMPANV LIMITED. Contract-Ship and shipping-Agreement to perform services with instruments supplied by other party--Implied contract of fitness-Warranty. Where one party to a contract engages to perform certain services for the other party with the means to be provided by such oilier parly, there is an implied warranty that such means are reasonably fit for the purpose for which they have been provided. The plaintiff R. R. made an agreement with the defendant company that he would take out from H. to P. a steam-tug towing six barges, together with a small assisting steamer. The defendant company was to provide both the steamers, and R. R. certain of the crew of the steam-tug. The limit of time for the voyage was seventy days. The steam-tug was proved to be quite unfitted for the task of iowing the barges across the Atlantic, and the small steamer took refuge at B, during the first storm, and her captain refused to rejoin R. R. In consequence, the voyage lasted 105 days, and three of the barges never readied their destination. B. B. brought this action for loss of time and profit, to which the defendant company answered that he had no cause of action, as he had undertaken the risk of the voyage, and counter-claimed against him for losses alleged to be due through his default or negligence. Held, that under the circumstances the defendants when providing the means for enabling the plaintiff to carry out Ms portion of the contract, impliedly undertook that they were reasonably fit for the purpose for which they were supplied, and that the plaintiff had a good cause of action. FURTHER CONSIDERATION. This was an action tried before Lord Coleridge, C.J. at Westminster, in April 1878, and reserved for further consideration. The facts of the case are as follows: The plaintiff is a master mariner of the merchant navy, and the defondants a registered company; and in Jane 1877 the defendants were desirous of having sis barges towed from the Humber to Para, in the Brazils. The plaintiff in undertaking the superintendence and management of the voyage signed the following document: I, Robert Robertson, hereby agree to take steam-tug toning Biz sailing barges from Hull, and one small steamer from the Downs, the latter named, to assist when required, to Fata, Brazils, providing and paying crews of officers, sailors, stokers, and trimmers (forty-one men all told), also provisions for all on board for seventy days, and finding nautical instruments and charts for the navigation of the above said steam tog, steamer, and six barges, the company paying pilotage from Hall to sea. All surplus stores to be left on board to be...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Astley Industrial Trust Ltd v Grimley
...business he would be presumed to have bound himself to take the proper steps to perform strictly". 25 Then in the case of Robertson v. Amazon Tug and Lighterage Co., (1881) 7 Queen's Bench Division, 598, there was no hiring of a chattel hut there are dicta on the subject. Baron Bramwell sai......
-
Yeoman Credit Ltd v Apps
...agreement for a specific chattel even though the object of the hiring is known or obvious to the owner. They rely on Robertson v. Amazon Tug & Lighterage Company, reported in volume 7 Queen's Bench Division at page 598. There the plaintiff, a master mariner, contracted with the defendants f......
- Huddart Parker Ltd v Coiter
-
Karsales (Harrow) Ltd v Wallis
...be kept in suitable order and repair for the purposes of the bailment. This is supported by Story on Bailment, Articles 383 to 385, and ( Robertson v. Amaon Tug & Lighterage Company 7 Queen'sBench Division, page 598). 5 The Plaintiffs say that there can be no such implication in this case ......