SHV Gas Supply & Trading SAS v Naftomar Shipping & Trading Co Ltd Inc

SHV Gas Supply & Trading SAS v Naftomar Shipping & Trading Co Ltd Inc

Naftomar was entitled to terminate the contract because SHV breached the condition that ETAs be given on reasonable grounds, as SHV failed to make reasonable inquiries about berthing prospects at Melilli. Even if the term was innominate, the consequences justified termination. The force majeure clause did not...

Source-derived case information.

Parties
Claimant: SHV Gas Supply & Trading SAS; Defendant: Naftomar Shipping & Trading Co Ltd Inc
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
15 November 2005
Procedural Posture
Commercial Contract Dispute / Judgment After Trial
Outcome
Claim dismissed
Legal Topics
CIF Contracts, Force Majeure, Implied Terms, Damages for Non Acceptance, Misrepresentation, Reasonable Time for Shipment
Commercial Law Contract Law International Trade CIF Contracts Force Majeure Implied Terms Damages for Non Acceptance Misrepresentation +1 more

Source-derived case record

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 13 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

SHV Gas Supply & Trading SAS

Claimant

Naftomar Shipping & Trading Co Ltd Inc

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Commercial Contract Dispute / Judgment After Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the reference to 'laycan' in the CIF contract constituted an agreed shipment period
  2. 2 Whether SHV breached an implied term to ship within a reasonable time
  3. 3 Whether SHV breached its undertaking that ETAs were given honestly and on reasonable grounds

Ratio Decidendi

Naftomar was entitled to terminate the contract because SHV breached the condition that ETAs be given on reasonable grounds, as SHV failed to make reasonable inquiries about berthing prospects at Melilli. Even if the term was innominate, the consequences justified termination. The force majeure clause did not prevent Naftomar from terminating, and SHV's notification was sufficient. There was no agreed shipment period, but a term to ship within a reasonable time was implied and not breached due to force majeure. SHV's claim for damages fails as Naftomar was entitled to terminate.

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed