CASE TITLE
North Ocean Shipping Co. Ltd. (Owners)
亲密的英文v.
Hyundai Construction Co. Ltd and Another (Yard)
[1979]
CASE SUMMARY
A shipbuilding company entered into a contract by which they agreed to build a tanker for ship owners for a fixed price in United States dollars, payment to be made in five installments. The company agreed to open a letter of credit to provide curity for repayment of installments in the event of their default in the performance of the contract. After the owners had paid the first installment, the United States dollar was devalued by 10 per cent. upon which the company put forward a claim to an increa of 10 per cent. in the r
emaining installments. The owners, asrting that there was no legal ground on which the claim could be made, paid the cond and third installments without the additional 10 per cent., but the company- returned both installments. The owners suggested that the company should subject their claim to arbitration, but they declined to do so, and requested the owners to give them a final and decisive reply to their demand for an increa by a certain date, failing which they would terminate the contract. The owners, who at that time were negotiating a very lucrative contract for the charter of the tanker, replied that although they were under no obligation to make additional payments, they would do so "without prejudice" to their rights, and requested that the company arrange for corresponding increas in the letter of credit. The company agreed to do so in June 1973, and the owners remitted the remaining installments, including the 10 per cent., without protest. The tanker was delivered to the owners in November 1974 but it was not until July 1975 that the company knew that the owners were claiming the return of the extra 10 per cent. paid on the four installments with interest and the matter was referred to arbitration. The arbitrators referred the ca for the opinion of the court on a question of law.
On the questions whether there was consideration for the agreement that the owners should pay an extra 10 per cent. And whether the owners had entered into the agreement under duress: -
Held, giving judgment for the company,
(1) that the company in agreeing to increa the letter of credit by 10 per cent were not merely fulfilling a pre- existing contractual obligation but were undertaking something additional and, in the circumstances, the increa was consideration for the agreement by which the owners incread their payments under the original contract.熟视无睹什么意思
(2) That the company's threat to break the contract without any legal justification unless the owners incread their payments by 10 per cent did amount to duress in the form of economic pressure and, accordingly, the agreement of June 1973 was a voidable contract which the owners could either affirm or avoid; that, since there was no likelihood that the company would resile from the contract to build the tanker at the time she was due for delivery, the owners, by making the final payments without protest and also by the
ir delay from November 1974 until July 1975 before making a claim for the return of the extra payments, had so conducted themlves as to affirm the contract and, accordingly, their claim failed.
win10开始菜单点击无效
DETAILED FACTS OF THE CASE
By a contract dated April 10, 1972, and made between the claimants, North Ocean Shipping Co. Ltd. of Monrovia, as prospective owners ("the owners"), and the first respondents, Hyundai Construction Co. Ltd. of Seoul, South Korea, as builders, the first respondents agreed to build for the owners a single steel screw turbine of 259,000 deadweight tons subquently named the Atlantic Baron. The contract incorporated the terms and conditions of a memorandum of agreement dated February 2, 1972. On February 20, 1974, the first respondents assigned their interest in the contract to an associated company, the cond respondents, Hyundai Shipbuilding & Heavy Industries Co. Ltd. of Ulsan, South Korea (both respondents are referred to as "the Yard").
走到人生边上A dispute having arin between the parties, the following claim were referred to arbitratio
大学班主任工作总结
n.
A claim by the owners for U.S. $3,010,250.00 in respect of alleged overpayments to the Yard. The owners contended that, during June 1973, they were compelled to submit to the Yard's illegitimate demand for an increa of 10 per cent in the purcha price; that agreement was made under duress and voidable for that reason or, alternatively, was void for lack of consideration. The Yard denied liability in full, arguing that the agreement of June 1973 was valid and binding upon the owners.
The ca having stated that article II of the memorandum of agreement provided that the purcha price of the vesl was to be U.S. $30,950,000 and that article III provided that the contract price "shall not be subject to adjustment,” continued:
Article XI (as amended) provided for the price to be payable in five installments, the four first installments each being 5 per cent of the purcha price payable (i) on the signing of the shipbuilding contract; (ii) within six working days of advice that prefabrication had been commenced; (iii) within six working days of advice that the keel had been laid; (iv) w
ithin six working days of advice that the vesl had been floated. The fifth and final installment was expresd to be payable on tender by the Yard and acceptance by the owners of delivery of the vesl. The arbitrators found the following facts:
1. On April 28, 1972, the owners duly paid the first installment of $1,547,000 pursuant to article XI of the memorandum. 村委会工作职责
2. On February 12, 1973, the United States dollar was devalued by 10 per cent. The Korean Won followed suit.
3. By a letter of April 23, 1973, the Yard requested the owners that each unpaid installment should be incread by 10 per cent on the ground of devaluation. On receipt of that request the owners took legal advice. They were advid and thereafter believed (taking legal advice at all stages) that there was no possible legal basis for that request. No legal basis for the request was ever advanced and at the hearing before the arbitrators, the Yard accepted that there was no possible legal ground for the request. 会操
漂亮的英文怎么写4. The owners, by their telex of May 14, 1973, refud the Yard's request.
