The Olanda (Note); Stoomvaart Maatschappij Nederlandsche Lloyd v General Mercantile Company (Note)
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Date | 1919 |
| Court | House of Lords (England) |
NOTE. — The Olanda sub. nom. Stoomvaart Maatschappij Nederlandsche Lloyd v. General Mercantile Company, Limited, House of Lords, January 29,
1917. The reporter has been furnished with the following note of the speeches of the noble and learned Lords in this appeal.
LORD FINLAY L.C. My Lords, a charterparty was entered into in this case, which provided that the steamer Olanda should proceed to a port on the river Parana and there receive a full and complete cargo of wheat, maize, rye, or linseed or rape seed. The wheat, maize and rye were to be paid for at 32s. per ton for carriage to Europe, and the linseed or rape seed was to be paid for at the rate of 1s. per ton more than the rate for wheat, maize or rye; and there was added a stipulation that there should not be more than 50 per cent. of linseed. A quantity considerably in excess of 50 per cent. of linseed was in fact put on board the steamer, and the action is brought to recover at the current rate of freight for the carriage of linseed at the time when that linseed was carried.
My Lords, it has been found by the arbitrator that the damages were nominal, and the same view was taken by Bailhache J. and by the Court of Appeal. It is now contended that the shipowners are entitled to a larger sum, and the case is put in two ways. First, it is said that the rate for the carriage of linseed had considerably risen, and that therefore the shipowners are entitled to the current rate of freight at the time the linseed was carried. Secondly, it is said that they lost the space in the vessel which was occupied by the linseed which could not properly have been put on board under the charterparty, and that they are entitled to damages for the loss of the use to which they might have put that space.
My Lords, cases were cited in support of the first claim to show that where there are alternative remedies the person aggrieved may waive one of them and pursue the other. As to that there is no doubt whatever; but in order to bring that doctrine into play you must have a case where alternative remedies exist. It is said that in the present case, instead of suing for breach of contract, the shipowners had the right to proceed for recovery of the current rate of freight under...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- Gilbert & Partners v Knight
-
Lansat Shipping Company Ltd v Glencore Grain BV
...Murray v Leisureplay plcUNK [2005] IRLR 946. Stoomvaart Maatschappij Nederlandsche Lloyd v General Mercantile Co Ltd (The Olanda)ELR [1919] 2 KB 728n. Philips Hong Kong Ltd v A-G of Hong KongUNK (1993) 61 BLR 41. Rederi Sverre Hansen A/S v Phs Van OmmerenUNK (1921) 6 Ll Rep 193. Shipping Co......
-
Lansat Shipping Company Ltd v Glencore Grain BV (The "Paragon")
...24 The position can perhaps be seen most clearly from the judgment of Atkin LJ at page 728: “The fact which distinguishes this case from The Olanda is that, in the words of Bailhache J, “it is not and could not be pretended that in loading general merchandise the charterers thought that the......
-
Sondra Mc Dowall-Robin v Bute Home Builders Ltd
...a quantum meruit cannot arise if there is an existing contract between the parties to pay an agreed sum: see, for instance, The Olanda [1919] 2 KB 728 and Gilbert and Partners v. Knight [1968] 2 All ER 248, 205 Estates Gazette 993. However, where there is a contract for specified work but t......