Th. Fronsdal & Co. v. William Alexander & Sons [1918] ScotLR 60 (23 November 1918)

Th. Fronsdal & Co. v. William Alexander & Sons [1918] ScotLR 60 (23 November 1918)

The charterers are liable for demurrage because the delay was not due to any fault of the shipowner, and the clause 'provided steamer can discharge at this rate' refers only to the vessel's mechanical capacity, not to external factors like labour shortages. The general rule imposing liability on the charterer applies, and the clause does not displace this rule.

Citation
[1918] ScotLR 60
Parties
Pursuer: Th. Fronsdal & Company; Defender: William Alexander & Sons
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
23 November 1918
Procedural Posture
Civil / Appeal (reclaiming Note) From Lord Ordinary's Decree
Outcome
appeal dismissed; decree for pursuers affirmed
Legal Topics
Charter Party, Demurrage, Interpretation of Contract Clauses, Liability for Delay, Exceptions to Lay Days

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 17 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Th. Fronsdal & Company

Pursuer

William Alexander & Sons

Defender

Procedural Posture

Civil / Appeal (reclaiming Note) From Lord Ordinary's Decree

  1. 1 Whether charterers are liable for demurrage when delay in discharge is caused by shortage of labour not attributable to shipowner's fault
  2. 2 Whether the clause 'always provided steamer can discharge at this rate' excuses charterers from liability for demurrage due to labour shortages

Ratio Decidendi

The charterers are liable for demurrage because the delay was not due to any fault of the shipowner, and the clause 'provided steamer can discharge at this rate' refers only to the vessel's mechanical capacity, not to external factors like labour shortages. The general rule imposing liability on the charterer applies, and the clause does not displace this rule.

Court Disposition

appeal dismissed; decree for pursuers affirmed

Orders

  • Reclaiming note refused
  • Interlocutor of Lord Ordinary adhered to