Per Lord Diplock in Paal Wilson & Co A/S v Partenreederei Hannah Blumenthal(The Hannah Blumenthal), [1983] 1 All ER 34 at p.48:
As to the issue whether the consequence of charterers’ orders to be the subject of the indemnity should be ‘direct’ consequences as distinct from mere consequences, the authorities demonstrate that the problem is more apparent than real and is largely a matter of semantics. The exercise essentially involved is the identification of the scope of the indemnity obligation and is thus fundamentally a question of construction. In identifying that scope, certain considerations are relevant. In particular, the parties are unlikely to have contracted for the protection of the Owner against losses which are remote as a matter of causation from the charterer’s order. That is because it is in a commercial setting improbable that a charterer would be prepared to assume the risk of eventualities causally remote from his own orders..Read more here:
No comments:
Post a Comment