Research Article
BibTex RIS Cite
Year 2023, Volume: 3 Issue: 2, 85 - 88, 10.01.2024
https://doi.org/10.14744/seatific.2023.0009

Abstract

References

  • Adyard Abu Dhabi v. SDS Marine Services. (2011). EWHC 848 (Comm). https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Comm/2011/848.html.
  • BIMCO. (n.d.). Contracts/NEWBUILDCON. Retrieved from https://www.bimco.org/Contracts-andclauses.
  • Jerram Halkus Construction Ltd v. Fenice Investments Inc. (2011). EWHC 1935 (TCC). https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/TCC/2011/1935.html.
  • Marrin, J. (2012, December 12). Concurrent delay revisited. Paper No. 179 presented at the Society of Construction Law. London, UK.
  • Multiplex Constructions UK Ltd. v. Honeywell Control Systems Ltd. (2007). Adj. L.R. 03/06, EWHC 447 (TCC). https://www.isurv.com/directory_record/4329/no_2
  • North Midland Building Ltd v Cyden Homes Ltd. (2018). EWCA Civ 1744. https://www.fenwickelliott.com/research-insight/newsletters/dispatch/archive/
  • Rede v. Farr. (1817). 6 M. & S. 121. 105 ER 1188.
  • Shawton Engineering v DGP International Ltd. (2005). AII ER (D) 241, CA; CILL 2306 CA. https://www.isurv.com/directory_record/4509/.
  • Stocznia Gdanska S. A. v. Latvian Shipping Co. and Others. (1998). House of Lords judgment. www.publications.parliament/uk
  • Zhousan Jinhaiwan Shipyard Co. v Golden Exquisite and Others. (2015). Lloyd’s Rep. 283. https://www.i-law.com/ilaw/doc/view.htm?id=352316.

“Force Majeure”, Extension of Time Clauses and the Prevention Principle in Shipbuilding Contracts

Year 2023, Volume: 3 Issue: 2, 85 - 88, 10.01.2024
https://doi.org/10.14744/seatific.2023.0009

Abstract

Under English law, it is entirely up to the contract parties to agree on “force majeure” events that are beyond the builder’s control. Under an old English law principle known as the “prevention principle”, no party to a contract should be allowed to benefit from its own failure to perform. In the context of shipbuilding contracts, this principle should give protection to a shipyard in the case of delays in the delivery of a vessel that are caused by the buyer’s defaults. It is the builder’s fundamental duty to deliver the vessel to the buyer on the delivery date set out in the shipbuilding contract. If the builder demands to be released from that duty, it will have to follow certain requirements imposed by English law.

References

  • Adyard Abu Dhabi v. SDS Marine Services. (2011). EWHC 848 (Comm). https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Comm/2011/848.html.
  • BIMCO. (n.d.). Contracts/NEWBUILDCON. Retrieved from https://www.bimco.org/Contracts-andclauses.
  • Jerram Halkus Construction Ltd v. Fenice Investments Inc. (2011). EWHC 1935 (TCC). https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/TCC/2011/1935.html.
  • Marrin, J. (2012, December 12). Concurrent delay revisited. Paper No. 179 presented at the Society of Construction Law. London, UK.
  • Multiplex Constructions UK Ltd. v. Honeywell Control Systems Ltd. (2007). Adj. L.R. 03/06, EWHC 447 (TCC). https://www.isurv.com/directory_record/4329/no_2
  • North Midland Building Ltd v Cyden Homes Ltd. (2018). EWCA Civ 1744. https://www.fenwickelliott.com/research-insight/newsletters/dispatch/archive/
  • Rede v. Farr. (1817). 6 M. & S. 121. 105 ER 1188.
  • Shawton Engineering v DGP International Ltd. (2005). AII ER (D) 241, CA; CILL 2306 CA. https://www.isurv.com/directory_record/4509/.
  • Stocznia Gdanska S. A. v. Latvian Shipping Co. and Others. (1998). House of Lords judgment. www.publications.parliament/uk
  • Zhousan Jinhaiwan Shipyard Co. v Golden Exquisite and Others. (2015). Lloyd’s Rep. 283. https://www.i-law.com/ilaw/doc/view.htm?id=352316.

Details

Primary Language English
Subjects Building (Other)
Journal Section Research Articles
Authors

Zoran TASİC

Early Pub Date January 10, 2024
Publication Date January 10, 2024
Submission Date November 18, 2023
Acceptance Date December 12, 2023
Published in Issue Year 2023 Volume: 3 Issue: 2

Cite

APA TASİC, Z. (2024). “Force Majeure”, Extension of Time Clauses and the Prevention Principle in Shipbuilding Contracts. Seatific Journal, 3(2), 85-88. https://doi.org/10.14744/seatific.2023.0009

Seatific Journal