Shipping disputes tend to take contract lawyers back to the serious stuff they vaguely remember from university but couldn’t really grasp at the time. King Crude Carriers SA v Ridgbury November SA [2023] EWHC 3220 (Comm), decided with aplomb and complete correctitude by Dias J – appropriately herself the daughter of a very eminent Cambridge legal academic – is a case in point. If you’re interested in the vital topics of conditional obligations and the rule that you can’t take advantage of your own wrong, read on.
Ship buyers signed 2012 NSF sale agreements for four secondhand Suezmax tankers, under which they agreed to pay a 10% deposit to HFW Greece as stakeholders. It was agreed that both parties would provide “all necessary documentation to open and maintain the [escrow] account without delay;” and that the deposit would be paid three days after HFW had “confirmed in writing to the Parties that the account has been fully opened and ready to receive funds.” A further term, inserted against the background of the COVID debacle, provided that the buyers would take steps to transfer the management of the vessel; that the sellers would, in the event of difficulties, “cooperate and make best endeavours to find a solution;” and that (implicitly) if no solution could be found, the deal would go off.
Transferring management indeed proved difficult, and (on the arbitrators’ findings) the sellers failed to make the necessary reasonable endeavours to deal with the problem. The sellers did, however, do their part to enable the escrow account to be set up. The buyers, by contrast, did not; HFW therefore could not declare the account ready; and no deposits were paid. The sellers resiled, and instituted arbitration proceedings claiming the unpaid deposits.
Could they do so? The point mattered, because if the sellers sought merely damages for breach of contract the buyers had a good case for saying there was no serious skin off the sellers’ nose because as buyers they could quite lawfully have declined to perform their own obligations.
The difficulty with the sellers’ claim was that the duty to pay the deposits was conditional on HFW confirming that there was an account to receive them, which of course had never happened. Faced with this, the sellers argued that the non-fulfilment of this condition should be ignored and the buyers forced to pay anyway. The reason? The civil law doctrine that you can’t pray a condition in aid to escape an obligation if your own wrong prevented it being fulfilled.
This idea has had some traction hitherto, and convinced a majority of the arbitrators. But in an impressive judgment, Dias J fairly comprehensively demolished it. True, she said, a contractor under a conditional obligation normally had a duty not to prevent the condition being satisfied (Mackay v Dick (1881) 6 App Cas 251); true also that, absent some absolutely incontrovertible provision to that effect, you could not activate a contractual right by founding on your own breach of contract (Alghussein Establishment v Eton College [1988] 1 WLR 587). It was also the case that in the specialised instance of debts, once a debt had become payable it prima facie remained exigible even if the debtor’s wrongful act put a spoke in the wheels of the stipulated payment mechanics.
Beyond this, however, the principle that you can’t gain from your own wrong did not go. As Dias J pointed out, if a buyer refuses, however wrongfully, to accept goods he may be liable in damages but can’t be sued for the price. Mackay v Dick, in so far as it supported the civil law conditionality doctrine and held a buyer of machinery liable for the price after he had stymied the holding of a test to confirm whether it was satisfactory, depended on Scots law: she preferred the line taken by Lord Blackburn J (an English lawyer, though Scots by origin) that, in effect, that case involved a buyer who had obtained delivery and was later trying to invoke his own wrongful act to undo the contract.
Following a brief determination by Dias J (again, it is suggested, impeccable) that in this case the deposit became payable not on the signing of the contract but only when HFW declared the escrow account open, and that the latter event could not be dismissed as a mere machinery for payment, it followed that the sellers in this case were limited to a claim in damages. She therefore sent the case back to the arbitrators to quantify these in the light of her judgment.
Moreover, this seems right. The right to claim a deposit against a defaulting buyer is a pretty drastic one, particularly since the deposit may exceed any loss suffered by the seller: taking a strict attitude towards the seller’s right to do so and insisting on a making a seller prove strict compliance with the conditions attached to the deposit seems only fair. If the buyers might indeed have reneged quite lawfully on their obligations because of the sellers’ alleged failure to perform their own , there was not much reason to give them a windfall.
Situations raising tissues of this kind can arise quite often in the case of negotiations and contractual disputes. This decision needs careful reading. Shipping lawyers, you have been warned.