Alegrow SA v Yayla Agro Gida San Ve Nak AS

Alegrow SA v Yayla Agro Gida San Ve Nak AS

The Appeal Board erred in law by finding Seller in repudiatory breach for failing to provide a shipment schedule by 30 March 2017, as no such contractual obligation existed. Buyer was not entitled to demand a shipment schedule, and Seller's failure did not constitute repudiatory breach. Instead, Buyer renounced the contract by its notice of arbitration, entitling Seller to damages.

Parties
Claimant/arbitration Respondent/seller: Alegrow S. A.; Defendant/arbitration Claimant/buyer: Yayla Agro Gida San Ve Nak A. S.
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
10 July 2020
Procedural Posture
Appeal From Arbitration Award / Judgment on Appeal Under Section 69 Arbitration Act 1996
Outcome
Appeal allowed; Award varied to find Seller not in repudiatory breach, Buyer renounced contract.
Legal Topics
Repudiatory Breach, Renunciation, Time of the Essence, Waiver, Remedies in Arbitration, Sale of Goods
Arbitration Commercial Law Contract Law Repudiatory Breach Renunciation Time of the Essence Waiver Remedies in Arbitration +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 Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 20 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 7
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Alegrow S. A.

Claimant/arbitration Respondent/seller

Yayla Agro Gida San Ve Nak A. S.

Defendant/arbitration Claimant/buyer

Procedural Posture

Appeal From Arbitration Award / Judgment on Appeal Under Section 69 Arbitration Act 1996

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Buyer was contractually entitled to demand a shipment schedule on 29 March 2017
  2. 2 Whether Seller was in repudiatory breach for failing to provide shipment schedule by 30 March 2017
  3. 3 Whether Seller's failure constituted renunciation

Ratio Decidendi

The Appeal Board erred in law by finding Seller in repudiatory breach for failing to provide a shipment schedule by 30 March 2017, as no such contractual obligation existed. Buyer was not entitled to demand a shipment schedule, and Seller's failure did not constitute repudiatory breach. Instead, Buyer renounced the contract by its notice of arbitration, entitling Seller to damages.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; Award varied to find Seller not in repudiatory breach, Buyer renounced contract.

Orders

  • Award varied to conclude Alegrow not in repudiatory breach; Yayla renounced contract by notice of arbitration.
  • Alegrow’s counterclaim remitted to tribunal for determination of liability and quantum.