The actions of two companies can lead to a binding contract being formed even if there is a mistake in the terms of the contract itself, the High Court has ruled. The High Court determined that a contract had existed between Statoil ASA and TTMI Sari because Statoil had paid TTMI for delivering its freight – even though there …
Should be Sempra Energy, not Sempa...
Other than that - demurrage (penalties for vessel's idle time beyond an agreed laytime limit in ports) is a legal cesspit. Anything can happen there...
And, anyway, a constructive contract is not such a unique event...
I don't know about cesspit...
But vessel owners have an expensive resource on their hands, and idle time costs money. If you can't return the resource (book to a library, rental car to the agency, 'escort' to the pimp) when agreed to, expect to be charged overtime.
What's the news here?
Offer, Acceptance, Consideration, Intention to create legal relations.This seems like first term contract law. What am I missing?
I am not sure I follow this.
Basically this says that the agreement between Statoil and TTMI which involves a payment for services means there is an implied contract.
Have I missed something?
Common sense being used?
shiver me timbers.
@what's the news here
You are working as a contractor. They decide not to pay you on the basis that your contract was with Megacorp and they are in fact megacorp-uk (a wholly owned subsiduary of megacorp bermuda holdings holdings ltd)
This ruling says - "come of it, you're getting paid".
Had this happen to me....
BBC paid the contractor, then the contractor refused to pay me, the sub contractor, because of a miss-print in their contract papers..
Only the big guys get to fight it out in court, the little guys get shafted.
Seems a fair exception
The exception being that the reality of an existing yet unsigned arrangement just indicates that administrators have to catch up with real world events.
Not to do so would probably bring an internal conflict (think civil war) to one or both organisations?
And such conflict would not be good for any senior or executive managers never mind for the board itself?
Hint: it would imply that the Board is out of touch with reality
It implies at least one side doesn't employ enough lawyers
Seriously, in-house counsel would just said "pay up", although internal politics usually play a part in this sort of thing.
The case law on this situation goes back over a century, and it's clear: if you behave as if there's a contract, there's a contract. In shipping and industry, there'll be common practices which the court will imply the parties intended to be bound by.
Trust me, I'm not a lawyer.
This is well established already
If you do a regular job for someone and they regularly pay you for it, that's a contract. It's a bit unusual for a written contract to be re-written by the actual way the parties carry on, there is usually a clause that says you can't do that, you have to actually change the written contract.
- World's OLDEST human DNA found in leg bone – but that's not the only boning going on...
- Lightning strikes USB bosses: Next-gen jacks will be REVERSIBLE
- Pics Brit inventors' GRAVITY POWERED LIGHT ships out after just 1 year
- Microsoft teams up with Feds, Europol in ZeroAccess botnet zombie hunt
- Storagebod Oh no, RBS has gone titsup again... but is it JUST BAD LUCK?