Communities

Writing
Writing
Codidact Meta
Codidact Meta
The Great Outdoors
The Great Outdoors
Photography & Video
Photography & Video
Scientific Speculation
Scientific Speculation
Cooking
Cooking
Electrical Engineering
Electrical Engineering
Judaism
Judaism
Languages & Linguistics
Languages & Linguistics
Software Development
Software Development
Mathematics
Mathematics
Christianity
Christianity
Code Golf
Code Golf
Music
Music
Physics
Physics

Dashboard
Notifications
Mark all as read
Q&A

If a repair on a vessel costs $2 and fully repaired vessel is worth $1, don't we need know worth of broken vessel to decide whether to repair?

+0
−2

I divided all prices by 100,000 to simplify the question. The book beneath doesn't stipulate the current value of the vessel. But don't we need to know it, to calculate if it's worth repairing? How do we prove that regardless of the vessel's current cost, the vessel not worth repair?

McKendrick. Contract Law: Text, Cases, and Materials (2020 9 ed). p. 787.

$\qquad$ In Attica Sea Carriers Corporation v. Ferrostaal Poseidon Bulk Reederei GmbH (The Puerto Buitrago) [1976] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 250 $\color{red}[,]$ charterers chartered a vessel from shipowners for 17 months. After six months the vessel required substantial repairs. The cost of these repairs was some $\color{red}[$20]$. But the vessel was not worth repairing because, even when it was fully repaired, it would be worth only $\color{red}[$10]$. In these circumstances the charterers terminated the charter hire and re-delivered the vessel. The charterers admitted liability for $\color{red}[$4]$ of the repairs but the shipowners refused to accept the re- delivery of the vessel, contending that the charterers were liable under the contract to pay the hire until the repairs had been carried out. The Court of Appeal rejected the shipowner’s argument, holding that the obligation to repair the vessel was not a condition precedent to the entitlement of the charterer to redeliver the vessel. It was therefore not necessary for the Court of Appeal to decide whether or not the shipowners were entitled to recover the hire until such time as the repairs were done. But the court nevertheless gave brief consideration to the issue. It was held that White & Carter was distinguishable. Lord Denning MR expressed himself in characteristically robust terms.

Why does this post require moderator attention?
You might want to add some details to your flag.
Why should this post be closed?

0 comments

0 answers

Sign up to answer this question »

This community is part of the Codidact network. We have other communities too — take a look!

You can also join us in chat!

Want to advertise this community? Use our templates!