Book contents
- Frontmatter
- General Editors’ Preface
- Acknowledgements
- Contents
- List of Cases
- List of Legislation
- List of Abbreviations
- List of Contributors
- PART I INTRODUCTORY MATTERS
- PART II CASE STUDIES
- PART III GENERAL CONCLUSIONS
- References
- Appendix I The Editorial Instructions for the National Reporters
- Appendix II The Questionnaire
- Index
Case 9 - Crystal Vases
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 11 February 2021
- Frontmatter
- General Editors’ Preface
- Acknowledgements
- Contents
- List of Cases
- List of Legislation
- List of Abbreviations
- List of Contributors
- PART I INTRODUCTORY MATTERS
- PART II CASE STUDIES
- PART III GENERAL CONCLUSIONS
- References
- Appendix I The Editorial Instructions for the National Reporters
- Appendix II The Questionnaire
- Index
Summary
‘Murray’ is a company that manufactures crystal vases. It has entered into a contract with ‘OnTrack’, an operator of cargo transportation by container freight trains. Clause 4 of their contract provides that Murray will be responsible for delivering its goods to ‘Distribution Warehouse 10, at the local freight train station.’ Murray delivers a consignment of goods to Distribution Warehouse 10. OnTrack refuses to ship them, however, explaining that delivery at a freight train terminal means delivery up to the actual container terminal. There the goods will be loaded into the appropriate containers. In fact, Murray delivered the goods to the entrance of the Distribution Warehouse, which is at least 800 metres away from the actual container terminal. The nature of the goods in question makes carriage of them, even over short distances, a complex task. Murray disputes OnTrack's view. It argues that Clause 4 of the contract is very clear on the issue of where the goods were to be delivered. It raises an action against OnTrack for breach of contract. OnTrack contests this action. It argues that Clause 4 must be read in light of the fact that it is a local custom of trade that goods are delivered up to the container terminal.
Assume that there is indeed, as OnTrack argues, a local custom of trade that goods are delivered by the manufacturers to the container terminal. How much weight is the court likely to give to this local custom of trade in interpreting Clause 4?
KEY ISSUES
This case maintains the focus on transport contracts which was seen in Case 8. The context is again the sale of goods, and the dispute concerns the interpretation of contractual clauses governing the way in which goods are to be delivered by the manufacturer to the cargo transportation company. The parties have differing interpretations of the terms of the contract which govern the location where goods are to be placed before collection by the cargo transportation company. This time there is a local custom of trade that goods should be delivered to a certain location.
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- Interpretation of Commercial Contracts in European Private Law , pp. 351 - 370Publisher: IntersentiaPrint publication year: 2020