This website uses cookies to ensure you get the best experience on our website. Learn more

Re The Moorcock [1889] 14 PD 64; [1886-90] All ER Rep 530

By Oxbridge Law TeamUpdated 24/03/2024 15:57

Judgement for the case Re The Moorcock

KEY POINTS

  • Damage to ships in tidal rivers can result from many factors, including collisions with submerged obstacles, underwater rocks, or the riverbank. Vessels' vulnerability to such incidents shows the need for careful management and vigilant seamanship when traversing these waterways.

  • Jetty structures in tidal rivers serve as important access points, facilitating the loading and unloading of cargo and passengers. However, the proximity of ships to jetties introduces an element of risk, as vessels must contend with the ebb and flow of tides, adding complexity to the already challenging task of docking safely.

  • When a vessel finds itself grounded in a tidal river, it becomes a matter of necessity rather than choice. Grounding may occur due to unexpected circumstances, such as adverse weather conditions or unforeseen technical issues, compelling the ship to seek refuge on the riverbed until the situation is resolved.

  • Wharfingers, as custodians of the jetties and waterfront facilities, implicitly represent a commitment to providing a safe and secure environment for maritime activities. 

FACTS

  • In this case, the Defendants, acting as wharfingers, entered into an agreement with the Plaintiff, a ship owner, wherein they agreed to permit the discharge of cargo from the Plaintiff's vessel at their jetty.

    • This jetty extended into the River Thames and was subject to the jurisdiction of the Conservators, who owned the adjacent riverbed.

    • The Defendants were entitled to charge fees for landing and storing the cargo as part of the agreement.

    • The nature of the jetty required the Plaintiff's vessel to ground at low water during the discharge process.

    • Importantly, the Defendants had no authority or control over the riverbed and had not taken any measures to determine its suitability for the vessel's grounding.

  • Regrettably, upon grounding, the vessel suffered damage due to the uneven condition of the riverbed adjoining the Defendants' jetty.

    • It is essential to note that the Defendants, as wharfingers, did not have any influence over the state of the riverbed, and their responsibility for the damage may be subject to legal interpretation based on the terms of their agreement and the circumstances surrounding the incident.

JUDGEMENT

  • Having considered the matter and affirming the judgment pronounced by Justice Butt, it was held that the Defendants bore liability in the present case.

    • The utilization of their premises by the Plaintiff was unavoidable under the given circumstances, as it necessitated the vessel's grounding.

    • The Defendants were deemed to have implicitly represented that they had exercised reasonable care in verifying the condition of the riverbed adjoining the jetty.

    • This implied representation extended to ensuring that the said riverbed was in a state that would not inflict harm upon the vessel.

  • As a result, the Defendants were held accountable for the damage incurred due to the uneven condition of the riverbed, as determined by the judgment of Justice Butt.

COMMENTARY

  • The risks associated with tidal rivers, including collisions with submerged obstacles and riverbank challenges, highlight the importance of careful management and vigilant seamanship for ships.

    • Jetty structures in these rivers, for cargo and passenger operations, introduce additional risks due to the ebb and flow of tides during docking.

    • When vessels are ground in tidal rivers, it is often a necessity prompted by unforeseen circumstances.

    • Wharfingers, responsible for jetties and waterfront facilities, implicitly commit to providing a secure environment for maritime activities.

  • In a specific case, Defendants, acting as wharfingers, agreed to allow the Plaintiff's vessel to discharge cargo at their jetty in the River Thames.

    • The jetty was subject to the jurisdiction of the Conservators, who owned the adjacent riverbed.

    • Despite charging fees for cargo services, the Defendants had no control over the riverbed's condition.

  • Following the vessel's grounding and subsequent damage, legal implications arose.

  • Affirming Justice Butt's judgment, it was held that the Defendants, by allowing the vessel to use their premises, implicitly represented taking reasonable care of the riverbed's condition.

  • The Defendants were thus held liable for damage caused by the uneven riverbed, emphasizing their responsibility to ensure a safe environment for maritime activities.

ORIGINAL ANALYSIS

  • Plaintiff contracted with Defendant to unload his boat at Defendant’s jetty, which was unsafe and Plaintiff’s boat was damaged in mooring.

  • The court implied a term into the contract that Defendant had to take reasonable care to ensure the safety of the harbour, which he had breached and for which he was liable. 

Bowen LJ

An implied warranty…is in all cases founded upon the presumed intention of the parties and upon reason.

  • CW: the problem here is that had Plaintiff been aware of the implied term he probably would have charged more for the contract initially. 

Any comments or edits about this case? Get in touch

For Further Study on Re The Moorcock

Need instant answers? Our AI exam tutor is here to help.

Ask questions 🙋 Get answers 📔 It's simple 👁️👄👁️

Our AI is educated by the highest scoring students across all subjects and schools. Join hundreds of your peers today.

Get Started

Related Product Samples

These product samples contain the same concepts we cover in this case.

Claim every advantage to get a first in law
Contract Law Notes
1,511 total pages
744 purchased

Contract law notes fully updated for recent exams at Oxford and Cambrid...