Canadian Government Merchant Marine, Ltd. v. Canadian Trading Co.

Canadian Government Merchant Marine, Ltd. v. Canadian Trading Co.

The express clause did not cover temporary delay in delivery of named ships under construction and was confined to discontinuance/curtailment of service or specified calamities; no implied condition excusing performance applied because the delay was a contingency that could have been anticipated or against which the carrier assumed the risk by contracting absolutely; therefore the carrier was liable for breach and respondent entitled to damages.

Citation
(1922) 64 SCR 106
Parties
Defendant/appellant: Canadian Government Merchant Marine, Ltd.; Plaintiff/respondent: Canadian Trading Company
Court
Supreme Court of Canada
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
17 June 1922
Procedural Posture
Contract Affreightment / Appeal to Supreme Court of Canada From Court of Appeal for British Columbia; Final Judgment Affirming Court of Appeal
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; judgment of the Court of Appeal for British Columbia affirmed; respondent entitled to damages for breach
Legal Topics
Affreightment, Interpretation of Express Conditions, Implied Condition for Impossibility, Doctrine of Frustration/impossibility (taylor V. Caldwell), Damages for Breach
Source Language
English
Contract Maritime Law Commercial Law Law of Frustration/impossibility Affreightment Interpretation of Express Conditions Implied Condition for Impossibility Doctrine of Frustration/impossibility (taylor V. Caldwell) +1 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 5 Authorities cited 14 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Canadian Government Merchant Marine, Ltd.

Defendant/appellant

Canadian Trading Company

Plaintiff/respondent

Procedural Posture

Contract Affreightment / Appeal to Supreme Court of Canada From Court of Appeal for British Columbia; Final Judgment Affirming Court of Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether express contractual clause making contract "conditional upon the continuance of the steamship company's service and the sailings of its steamers between the ports named" absolved carrier for delay in delivery of ships under construction
  2. 2 Whether an implied condition excusing performance arises where ships named in contract are not completed in time through no fault of the carrier (application of Taylor v. Caldwell and related authorities)
  3. 3 Whether the carrier is liable for damages for failing to produce the named vessels at the agreed time

Ratio Decidendi

The express clause did not cover temporary delay in delivery of named ships under construction and was confined to discontinuance/curtailment of service or specified calamities; no implied condition excusing performance applied because the delay was a contingency that could have been anticipated or against which the carrier assumed the risk by contracting absolutely; therefore the carrier was liable for breach and respondent entitled to damages.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; judgment of the Court of Appeal for British Columbia affirmed; respondent entitled to damages for breach

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed with costs
  • Judgment of the Court of Appeal for British Columbia affirmed