Statoil ASA v Louis Dreyfus Energy Services LP

Statoil ASA v Louis Dreyfus Energy Services LP

The contract did not contain a demurrage time bar clause. The first settlement agreement was not void or voidable for unilateral mistake as the mistake was not as to a contract term. However, an oral agreement was reached on 19 March 2007 for the correct demurrage sum, which superseded the prior agreement. Statoil is entitled to the balance of demurrage claimed.

Parties
Claimant: Statoil A.S.A.; Defendant: Louis Dreyfus Energy Services L.P.
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
29 September 2008
Procedural Posture
Commercial Contract Dispute / Judgment After Trial
Outcome
Claim allowed
Legal Topics
Demurrage, Unilateral Mistake, Contract Formation, Time Bar Clauses, Settlement 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 3 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Statoil A.S.A.

Claimant

Louis Dreyfus Energy Services L.P.

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Commercial Contract Dispute / Judgment After Trial

  1. 1 Whether the contract contained a demurrage time bar clause
  2. 2 Whether the first settlement agreement was void or voidable for unilateral mistake
  3. 3 Whether an oral agreement was reached on 19 March 2007 superseding the prior settlement

Ratio Decidendi

The contract did not contain a demurrage time bar clause. The first settlement agreement was not void or voidable for unilateral mistake as the mistake was not as to a contract term. However, an oral agreement was reached on 19 March 2007 for the correct demurrage sum, which superseded the prior agreement. Statoil is entitled to the balance of demurrage claimed.

Court Disposition

Claim allowed

Orders

  • Judgment for Statoil for US$435,833.12 as balance of demurrage
  • Further argument to be heard on interest if required