Septo Trading Inc v Tintrade Ltd

Septo Trading Inc v Tintrade Ltd

The Certificate of Quality issued at the loadport was binding only for invoicing purposes, not for final determination of quality; the cargo was off-spec due to incompatibility of shore tank contents resulting in excessive TSP; damages are to be assessed based on the actual market value of the off-spec cargo, not on exaggerated or hypothetical costs.

Parties
Claimant: Septo Trading Inc.; Defendant: Tintrade Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
08 July 2020
Procedural Posture
Commercial Dispute / Judgment After Full Trial
Outcome
Judgment for the Claimant
Legal Topics
Binding Effect of Quality Certificates, Measure of Damages, Commodity Contracts, Manifest Error, Independent Inspection Clauses
Contract Law Sale of Goods Binding Effect of Quality Certificates Measure of Damages Commodity Contracts Manifest Error Independent Inspection Clauses

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

Septo Trading Inc.

Claimant

Tintrade Limited

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Commercial Dispute / Judgment After Full Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Certificate of Quality issued at the loadport is binding for all purposes or only for invoicing
  2. 2 Whether the cargo was off-spec due to excessive TSP
  3. 3 Measure of damages for breach of contract

Ratio Decidendi

The Certificate of Quality issued at the loadport was binding only for invoicing purposes, not for final determination of quality; the cargo was off-spec due to incompatibility of shore tank contents resulting in excessive TSP; damages are to be assessed based on the actual market value of the off-spec cargo, not on exaggerated or hypothetical costs.

Court Disposition

Judgment for the Claimant

Orders

  • Claimant awarded damages of $3,058,801
  • Claimant entitled in principle to a declaration of indemnity in respect of Macoil’s claims, subject to further agreement or application