X contracted to give P a charter, before selling the boat to D. D gave X a charter for the remaining period of P’s entitled use of the boat (so as to allow X to honour its contract with P) but demanded a clause, which X accepted, that if the boat was requisitioned then the charter would cease. The boat was requisitioned, but when returned the charter would still have 7 months on it. P sued for the remaining months. D didn’t realise that no similar clause was contained in the agreement between X and P. QBD held that the equity principle of Strathcona was wrong and that, even if it was right, this case was distinguished since here D was not acting inequitably: he was unaware of the non-existence of the clause. QBD also said that P should really be suing X for breach of contract.
