Someone recently bought our

students are currently browsing our notes.


Attica Sea Carriers V. Ferrostaal Notes

BCL Law Notes > Commercial Remedies BCL Notes

This is an extract of our Attica Sea Carriers V. Ferrostaal document, which we sell as part of our Commercial Remedies BCL Notes collection written by the top tier of Oxford students.

The following is a more accessble plain text extract of the PDF sample above, taken from our Commercial Remedies BCL Notes. Due to the challenges of extracting text from PDFs, it will have odd formatting:

ATTICA SEA CARRIERS V. FERROSTAAL FACTS The vessel is owned by a Liberian company, Attica Sea Carriers Corporation, and is managed by the Goulandris group. Since 1970 she has been let on successive time charters to one of the Ferrostaal group in Hamburg. The latest of these charter-parties is a bareboat time charter by demise, under which the vessel was manned and maintained by the charterers. She is powered by steam turbines. When she was delivered to the charterers in January, 1974, she was presumably in good repair. After six months use, in July, 1974, she was drydocked at Gdansk in Poland, and any necessary repairs were done. Temporary repairs were done, but the surveyor recommended that permanent repairs be effected when the vessel reached Europe. The charterers thought that the best thing was to sell her then and there for scrap. They were losing $2000 a day on her. But no agreement was reached. So the charterers tried to repair her again. Temporary repairs were done and she set sail again from Rio de Janeiro, on May 13. But after a few days she again broke down and had to return to Rio. The charterers then decided that the only thing to do was to have her towed all the way to Europe. This was done. On June 18, 1975, the vessel, full of a cargo of soya bean meal, was towed out of Rio and then for six weeks across the oceans till she reached Gdynia in Poland on Aug. 1, 1975. Her cargo was there discharged. She was then towed to Kiel, where she arrived on Sept. 7, 1975. The owners produced a specification for drydocking and repairs. If these repairs were all done, they would cost, it is said, about $2 million, whereas the value of the vessel, when repaired, would only be $1 million. They advised the charterers that it was open to them to redeliver the vessel to the owners in its unrepaired state-thus terminating the charter hire, but being liable in damages. The owners, however, refused to accept redelivery. They had a few men on the vessel and removed them next morning at 10 00. At 12 noon the charterers' men left. The only men left on the vessel were watchmen provided by the repairers. Nevertheless, the owners lodged another action against the charterers claiming hire at the charter rate of $46,000 a month until the vessel was repaired and redelivered in sound condition. On Oct. 16, 1975, he gave judgment in favour of the shipowners, holding in effect that the charterers were bound to repair the vessel before redelivery, and that the owners were entitled to the hire until the charterers repaired the vessel. QUESTION

Buy the full version of these notes or essay plans and more in our Commercial Remedies BCL Notes.

More Commercial Remedies Bcl Samples