Kellogg Brown & Root Inc v Concordia Maritime Ag

Kellogg Brown & Root Inc v Concordia Maritime Ag

The court found that no duty of care or collateral warranty arose on the facts; the parties intended the written contracts to be exhaustive and did not assume responsibility for pre-contractual statements. The Petrobras Specification required steel renewal to as-built thickness for bottom pitting. KBR acted reasonably in its approach to steel renewal and was entitled to recover 1200 tonnes at the contractual rate of $3054 per tonne under the guarantee. Claims for additional implied terms and higher rates were rejected.

Parties
Claimant: Kellogg Brown & Root Inc; Defendant: Concordia Maritime AG; Defendant: Stena Bulk AB; Defendant: Concordia Maritime AB; Defendant: Northern Marine Management USA LLC (formerly Universe Tankships (Delaware LLC))
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
21 December 2006
Procedural Posture
Commercial Contract Dispute / Judgment After Trial
Outcome
Claim allowed in part; judgment for claimant for specified sum under guarantee; all other claims dismissed.
Legal Topics
Negligent Misstatement, Collateral Warranty, Interpretation of Contractual Terms, Guarantee Liability, Damages for Breach of Contract
Contract Law Tort Law Commercial Law Negligent Misstatement Collateral Warranty Interpretation of Contractual Terms Guarantee Liability Damages for Breach of Contract

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 4 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Kellogg Brown & Root Inc

Claimant

Concordia Maritime AG

Defendant

Stena Bulk AB

Defendant

Concordia Maritime AB

Defendant

Northern Marine Management USA LLC (formerly Universe Tankships (Delaware LLC))

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Commercial Contract Dispute / Judgment After Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defendants are liable for negligent mis-statement to the claimant
  2. 2 Whether any collateral warranty arose and was breached
  3. 3 Proper construction of the Petrobras Specification regarding steel renewal

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that no duty of care or collateral warranty arose on the facts; the parties intended the written contracts to be exhaustive and did not assume responsibility for pre-contractual statements. The Petrobras Specification required steel renewal to as-built thickness for bottom pitting. KBR acted reasonably in its approach to steel renewal and was entitled to recover 1200 tonnes at the contractual rate of $3054 per tonne under the guarantee. Claims for additional implied terms and higher rates were rejected.

Court Disposition

Claim allowed in part; judgment for claimant for specified sum under guarantee; all other claims dismissed.

Orders

  • Defendant Concordia Maritime AG to pay claimant for 1200 tonnes of steel renewal at $3054 per tonne, plus agreed sum for internals and miscellaneous items at 160 tonnes at $3054 per tonne.
  • All other claims, including for negligent misstatement, collateral warranty, and implied terms, dismissed.