In an already hectic legislative framework regarding the operation of a shipping company, new court decisions as of late, have seemingly altered the way of doing business, when it comes to buying and selling vessels. According to the latest weekly report from shipbroker Intermodal, two recently decided cases, "The Union Power" and "The Griffon", should become aware to any prudent ship owners, before he enteres into an MOA for secondhand tonnage.
According to Intermodal's SnP broker, Mr. Tasos Papadopoulos, "in the Griffon case, an MoA based upon NSF 93 had been signed on 1st May 2010 for the purchase of m/v Griffon. A deposit of 10pct (i.e USD 2,156,000) was payable within 3 banking days of signature; that is by 5th May, 2010. The deposit was not paid by that date and Sellers, on 6th May, 2010 cancelled the MOA as per their express contractual right and claimed the deposit.
Buyers had accepted that their failure to pay the deposit was in breach of contract but argued that Sellers should only be entitled to claim "compensation for losses" (as per clause 13 ) and not the whole deposit. The Court of Appeal confirmed that Buyers are liable for the amount of the (unpaid) whole deposit, if the MOA is terminated as a result of Buyers’ breach. This heralds a departure from the previously held view that under clause 13 of NSF 93, where a Buyer fails to pay the deposit under clause 2, Sellers "shall have the right to cancel this Agreement, and they shall be entitled to claim compensation for their losses and for all expenses incurred together with interest" (which might be less than the amount of the deposit).
During the arbitration it was argued that the damages recoverable by Sellers should be the difference between contract and market price which were said to be US$275,000; that is, substantially less than the deposit (i.e. USD 2,156,000). The Court however, concluded that Sellers are in fact entitled to claim the whole deposit in such circumstances", Mr. Papadopoulos noted.He went on to note that "anyway, it would not make sense for Buyers to be able to put themselves in a better position than the one they would have been had they not paid the deposit. This case is a reminder to Buyers of secondhand tonnage that if they agree to pay a deposit, under standard NSF terms, they will lose the deposit if they fail to perform, even if Sellers suffer no loss.
The case of "The Union Power" in turn, has caused us to re-assess the Sellers' obligation under clause 11 of NSF 93 (Condition on Delivery) and a different understanding of the terms "As is where is " and "As she was at the time of inspection". The MOA in this case, included clause 11 that stipulated that the vessel was to be “delivered and taken over as she was at the time of inspection, fair wear and tear excepted”.
When the dispute arose, the buyers argued that a term as to satisfactory quality was to be implied into the MOA by way of s.14(2) of the Sale of Goods Act 1979 (SOGA). Sellers argued that the provision of clause 11, that the vessel was to be sold “as she was”, was inconsistent with implying such a term. The Commercial Court decided in favor of the Buyers, concluding that "class does not tell you the quality of the vessel, which is why the independent implied term as to satisfactory quality is required", Papadopoulos stated.According to the broker, "as a result, the effects of the expressions "As is" or "As is where is" no longer exclude the right of Buyers to claim for damages for breach of implied “quality” but only to exclude their right to reject the vessel and not take delivery of her as per the terms and provisions of the MOA.
In my view, the above decision is contrary to the commercial common sense and market understanding that has been the basis for thousands of deals over the years.However, it is worth mentioning that the new NSF 2012 includes wording under Clause 18 which excludes the SOGA regime. Ultimately, what matters is whether the parties have used express and clear wording, such as that of NSF2012, to exclude the SOGA regime if they wish to exclude the satisfactory quality rule", he concluded.
According to Intermodal's SnP broker, Mr. Tasos Papadopoulos, "in the Griffon case, an MoA based upon NSF 93 had been signed on 1st May 2010 for the purchase of m/v Griffon. A deposit of 10pct (i.e USD 2,156,000) was payable within 3 banking days of signature; that is by 5th May, 2010. The deposit was not paid by that date and Sellers, on 6th May, 2010 cancelled the MOA as per their express contractual right and claimed the deposit.
Buyers had accepted that their failure to pay the deposit was in breach of contract but argued that Sellers should only be entitled to claim "compensation for losses" (as per clause 13 ) and not the whole deposit. The Court of Appeal confirmed that Buyers are liable for the amount of the (unpaid) whole deposit, if the MOA is terminated as a result of Buyers’ breach. This heralds a departure from the previously held view that under clause 13 of NSF 93, where a Buyer fails to pay the deposit under clause 2, Sellers "shall have the right to cancel this Agreement, and they shall be entitled to claim compensation for their losses and for all expenses incurred together with interest" (which might be less than the amount of the deposit).
During the arbitration it was argued that the damages recoverable by Sellers should be the difference between contract and market price which were said to be US$275,000; that is, substantially less than the deposit (i.e. USD 2,156,000). The Court however, concluded that Sellers are in fact entitled to claim the whole deposit in such circumstances", Mr. Papadopoulos noted.He went on to note that "anyway, it would not make sense for Buyers to be able to put themselves in a better position than the one they would have been had they not paid the deposit. This case is a reminder to Buyers of secondhand tonnage that if they agree to pay a deposit, under standard NSF terms, they will lose the deposit if they fail to perform, even if Sellers suffer no loss.
The case of "The Union Power" in turn, has caused us to re-assess the Sellers' obligation under clause 11 of NSF 93 (Condition on Delivery) and a different understanding of the terms "As is where is " and "As she was at the time of inspection". The MOA in this case, included clause 11 that stipulated that the vessel was to be “delivered and taken over as she was at the time of inspection, fair wear and tear excepted”.
When the dispute arose, the buyers argued that a term as to satisfactory quality was to be implied into the MOA by way of s.14(2) of the Sale of Goods Act 1979 (SOGA). Sellers argued that the provision of clause 11, that the vessel was to be sold “as she was”, was inconsistent with implying such a term. The Commercial Court decided in favor of the Buyers, concluding that "class does not tell you the quality of the vessel, which is why the independent implied term as to satisfactory quality is required", Papadopoulos stated.According to the broker, "as a result, the effects of the expressions "As is" or "As is where is" no longer exclude the right of Buyers to claim for damages for breach of implied “quality” but only to exclude their right to reject the vessel and not take delivery of her as per the terms and provisions of the MOA.
In my view, the above decision is contrary to the commercial common sense and market understanding that has been the basis for thousands of deals over the years.However, it is worth mentioning that the new NSF 2012 includes wording under Clause 18 which excludes the SOGA regime. Ultimately, what matters is whether the parties have used express and clear wording, such as that of NSF2012, to exclude the SOGA regime if they wish to exclude the satisfactory quality rule", he concluded.