Contract e
Contract e
Contract e
Name :
Question no 1:
Legal Restrication on the right of innocent party
In MSC Mediterranean Shipping Company S.A. v Cottonex Anstalt [2016]
EWCA Civ 789, the Court of Appeal held that the innocent party who
was subject to a repudiatory breach did not have the option to affirm
the contract once the commercial purpose had become frustrated,
because at that point further performance by the defaulting party had
become impossible.
Background
While the cotton was in transit there was a collapse in the price of raw
cotton and a dispute arose about the dating of the bills of lading with
the result that nobody was willing to take delivery of the goods, which
remained at the port. The dispute that followed prevented the claimant
from taking back the containers, and the defendant from returning
them to the claimant. This case arises out of a dispute between the
carrier (the claimant) and the shipper (the defendant), with the carrier
seeking to claim demurrage charges which it said would continue to
accrue under the contract until the containers were redelivered.
The shipper argued that its inability to redeliver the containers within
the foreseeable future amounted to a repudiation of the contract,
which the carrier was obliged to accept and which had therefore
brought the contract, and therefore the continuing obligation to pay
demurrage, to an end.
Decision
The court held that the claimant was only entitled to the demurrage
payment accruing from the end of the expiry of the "free time" up until
the date when the contract had been terminated by the defendant's
breach.
In this case, the court held that the option of affirming the repudiatory
breach was not even open to the innocent party because at the time of
the repudiation, the commercial purpose of the contract had become
frustrated and further performance by the shipper was impossible
because it could not deliver the containers back to the carrier.
However, even if that wasn't the case, the carrier did not have a
legitimate purpose for keeping the contract alive when it became clear
that the shipper was in repudiatory breach of the contract, For example
when it was clear it could not return, the containers the only interest in
affirming the contract after the breach would be for the claimant to
claim demurrage which was "wholly unreasonable" and simply a way of
claiming "free income".
The court ruled that the carrier could claim demurrage up to and
including the day before the contract became frustrated and damages
in respect of the loss of the containers calculated using their value on
the date they were lost.
Question no 2 :
Contract (Rights of Third Parties) Act
1999
The Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 which received Royal
Assent on 11 November 1999. They have been prepared by the Lord
Chancellor's Department in order to assist the reader in understanding
the Act. They do not form part of the Act and have not been endorsed
by Parliament.They are not, and are not meant to be, a comprehensive
description of the Act. So where a section or part of a section does not
seem to require any explanation or comment, none is given.
The Act reforms the rule of "privity of contract" under which a person
can only enforce a contract if he is a party to it. The rule means that,
even if a contract is made with the purpose of conferring a benefit on
someone who is not a party to it, that person (a “third party”) has no
right to sue for breach of contract.
On the other hand, it has been suggested that by allowing third parties
to sue upon a contract to which he is not a party would ‘lead to an
indeterminate range of liability’ and since the law requires certainty
and predeictability, by allowing third party rights, it would make the
law uncertain and unpredictable. Section 1(1) a, allows a third party to
enforce a term of the contract where the contract ‘expressly provides
that he may’. This has improved the situation such as Tweddle v
Atkinson, because it gives effect to the intentions of the parties.
Question no 3:
Intention to Create Legal Relation
Intention to create legal relations is defined as an intention to enter a
legally binding agreement or contract. Intention to create legal
relations is one of the necessary elements in formation of a contract. It
is because, intention to create legal relations consists of readiness of a
party to accept the legal sequences of having entered into an
agreement. Intention to create legal relations is a motion of every
contracting party must have the necessary intention to enter into a
legally binding contract.
e) Without intention to create legal relations the contract may lack the
binding effect