This is an extract of our Maesrk Colombo 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:
MAESRK COLOMBO FACTS On the evening of Feb. 18, 1995 the defendants' container vessel Maersk Colombo, entered the port of Southampton with a view to making fast alongside the claimants' container terminal. Shortly after about 00 10 on Feb. 19, as she was manuvering alongside with the assistance of tugs, Maersk Colombo struck No. 1 crane of the berth causing it to fall over and collapse. Before the trial the defendants admitted that Maersk Colombo was handled negligently. It followed that the defendants were liable in respect of the damage to No. 1 crane, subject to an allegation of contributory negligence. ISSUE Whether the claimants were entitled to recover damages based on the cost of reinstatement of No. 1 crane or based on its resale value. HOLDING Findings of fact by the trial judge (1) But for the demolition of the crane by Maersk Colombo, the claimants would have continued to use the cranes as they were on the night of the collision. (2) The crane was not, however, replaced because in June, 1994 the claimants had signed a contract for the delivery of two post-Panamax cranes for delivery in May/June,
1995. Those cranes were delivered in the summer of 1995. (4) The memorandum made it clear that the managing director, Mr. Dawes, regarded it as practicable to operate the berth satisfactorily with one less Panamax following the installation of the two new cranes, even if such an arrangement would not be particularly welcome to the operations' director. (6) One less crane may have caused some inconvenience, but it was not suggested that any material expense, such as overtime, was incurred or any other consequential losses were sustained. Accordingly, there was no loss of flexibility measurable in financial terms, nor was there any loss in capacity given the imminent arrival of the two new cranes. (7) It would have been unreasonable to replace the crane because the expenditure would have been out of all proportion to the benefit obtained
Buy the full version of these notes or essay plans and more in our Commercial Remedies BCL Notes.