27th, 2011. It was also held by the court that the choice of terminating in response of the repudiatory contravention had to be undertaken in good faith and that MSC was to be restrained from keeping the contract afoot by claiming more demurrage4. When the matter went to appeal, it was held that the plaintiff was entitled to demurrage from expiry of 14 days but only till the date on which the containers were offered to be sold to Cottonex, i.e., till February 02nd, 2012. Though, the contract could not be held open for further performance as it was held that MSC did not have the option of affirming the same. And on February 02nd 2012 the court held that the contract had become frustrated whereby the same had to be terminated without giving the option of affirming the same to MSC5. Question 1Whether the contract was frustrated in this case?Answer 1Frustration of contract takes place when the contract loses its commercial viability6. When the conditions are changed in such a manner, where no party is at fault, and where the contract is rendered impossible to be performed, the contract is deemed to be frustrated7. The case is based on White and Carter (Councils) Ltd v McGregor8 where it was stated that if it can be shown that the person lacks legitimate interest in performance of contract, instead of claiming damages, the person is not to be permitted to saddle the other party with additional burden particularly when no burden is attained for himself. 4Ibid5 Ibid6 Jeffrey A. Helewitz, Basic Contract Law for Paralegals (Aspen Publishers Online, 5th ed, 2007)7Linda Mulcahy, Contract Law in Perspective (Routledge, 5th ed, 2008)8 [1961] UKHL 5

+13062052269

info@desklib.com

Contract Law Case Study: MSC v Cottonex

Contribute Materials

Related Documents