INTRODUCTION Contributed by: Yoav Harris, John Harris (1940-2023) and Domiana Abboud, Harris & Co Maritime Law Office
clause of the COA, arguing that continuing with the COA would place MUR in breach of the sanctions, and the sanctions prevented dollar payment of the freight as determined in the COA. MUR denied RTI’s argument that payment could be made in euros, with conversion to US dollars at RTI’s expense, and declined to nominate any ships to carry the cargo of RTI, which later com - menced arbitration, claiming its additional costs for the alternative carriage it had arranged. The matter reached the Supreme Court, which held inter alia that principles of freedom of contract and certainty in commercial contracts allowed MUR to reject the non-contractual performance of the contract, as the contractual right was pay - ment of the freight in USD, and the contract did not permit any other form of payment. This was supported by Bulman v Fenwick [1894], where the charterers’ contractual right to nominate the berth was acknowledged, allowing him to decline the owner’s request to place the vessel in an alternative discharge berth, and by Rear - don Smith Line v Ministry of Agriculture [1963], where the charterer’s contractual right to insist on the loading of a cargo of wheat only – rather than using the alternative option of loading one- third of barely and one-third of flour – was also
acknowledged (in both cases, the charterers used their rights against a background of strikes that delayed the vessels, with no payment of demurrage). Since “reasonable endeavours” in the meaning of the force majeure clause acts to maintain the contractual performance and not to substitute it with a different performance, MUR was not obliged to accept payment in euros, and the force majeure applied. Although this matter dealt with sanctions imposed prior to the war between Russia and Ukraine, it seems that the grounds of viewing sanctions that interfere with a concluded contract as a force majeure event, which could not be avoided by changing the contract, were set. The cases above are examples of how com - mercial practice and international sanctions are viewed and decided by the courts according to long-established principles of law. Other chapters and articles in this guide will also shed light on these and other aspects of mari - time law and shipping; each jurisdiction brings unique legal perspectives, practices and chal - lenges, contributing to a more comprehensive and diverse view of maritime law.
11
CHAMBERS.COM
Powered by FlippingBook