Thoresen & Co (Bangkok) Ltd v Fathom Marine Company Ltd & Ors [2004] EWHC 167 (Comm) (09 February 2004)

Thoresen & Co (Bangkok) Ltd v Fathom Marine Company Ltd & Ors [2004] EWHC 167 (Comm) (09 February 2004)

The inclusion of 'sub details' in Clause 10 of the recap e-mail had a recognised meaning in shipping and commercial law, indicating that no binding contract existed until all details were agreed. The parties' exchanges and the context confirmed that not all details had been settled, and thus no binding contract was concluded on 27 November 2003.

Citation
[2004] EWHC 167 (Comm)
Parties
Claimant: Thoresen & Co (Bangkok) Ltd; Defendant: Fathom Marine Company Ltd; Defendant: Brazilian Hope Shipping Company Ltd; Defendant: Yale Shipping Company Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
09 February 2004
Procedural Posture
Commercial Contract Dispute / First Instance Judgment
Outcome
Claim dismissed
Legal Topics
Formation of Contract, Sale of Ships, Subject to Contract Clauses, Interpretation of Commercial Agreements
Commercial Law Contract Law Shipping Law Formation of Contract Sale of Ships Subject to Contract Clauses Interpretation of Commercial Agreements

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 2 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Thoresen & Co (Bangkok) Ltd

Claimant

Fathom Marine Company Ltd

Defendant

Brazilian Hope Shipping Company Ltd

Defendant

Yale Shipping Company Limited

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Commercial Contract Dispute / First Instance Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a binding contract for the sale of vessels was concluded on 27 November 2003
  2. 2 Interpretation of 'sub details' in Clause 10 of the recap e-mail

Ratio Decidendi

The inclusion of 'sub details' in Clause 10 of the recap e-mail had a recognised meaning in shipping and commercial law, indicating that no binding contract existed until all details were agreed. The parties' exchanges and the context confirmed that not all details had been settled, and thus no binding contract was concluded on 27 November 2003.

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed

Orders

  • Claim for declaration of binding contract dismissed