| Glynn v Margetson [1893] A.C. 351 | |
|---|---|
 | |
| Court | House of Lords |
| Citation(s) | [1893] A.C. 351 |
| Keywords | |
Glynn v Margetson [1] is an English case on the law of carriage of goods by sea which established the "Main Purpose Rule" in relation to deviation.
| Glynn v Margetson [1893] A.C. 351 | |
|---|---|
| | |
| Court | House of Lords |
| Citation(s) | [1893] A.C. 351 |
| Keywords | |
Glynn v Margetson [1] is an English case on the law of carriage of goods by sea which established the "Main Purpose Rule" in relation to deviation.
A vessel, the Zena, was chartered to carry a perishable cargo of Seville oranges from Malaga to a marmalade factory in Liverpool. The bill of lading provided that the master was "at liberty to visit any ports in any order". Although a carrier has a duty to "proceed with reasonable despatch" [2] and not to deviate from the agreed course, the ship visited other ports in Spain and North Africa before heading for Liverpool. The deviation caused delays in delivering the cargo, during which time both the cargo and the market for oranges had deteriorated. The cargo-owner sued.
The House of Lords held that the "liberty clause" was in effect an exemption clause which sought to limit the carrier's liability for loss caused through unjustifiable deviation. The court went on to establish the "Main Purpose Rule" which provided that no exemption rule may cut into the main purpose of the contract. [3] Accordingly, the carrier was not permitted the protection of the liberty clause and thus was liable for the loss.
Lord Herschell LC declared: ‘Where general words are used in a printed form which are obviously intended to apply, ...to a particular contract, ... I think you are justified in looking at the main object [4] and intent of the contract and in limiting the general words used, having in view that object and intent.’
Although the liberty clause could not be relied upon to condone major breach, it follows that exemption clauses might be allowed to excuse breaches of peripheral or minor obligations.
The Main Purpose Rule was subsequently adopted by the general English contract law in the 1956 case of Karsales v Wallis , recast as the "Fundamental Breach" doctrine. The Karsales case has since been limited in effect by subsequent decisions and statutes:
Although the effect of Karsales has been blunted, the rule in Glynn v Margetson remains as sharp as ever, although the law on deviation was diluted by Art IV Rule 4 of the Hague-Visby Rules.
Glynn v Margetson was cited in:
Consideration is an English common law concept within the law of contract, and is a necessity for simple contracts. The concept of consideration has been adopted by other common law jurisdictions, including the US.
Freedom of contract is the freedom of private or public individuals and groups to form nonviolent contracts without government restrictions. This is opposed to government restrictions such as minimum- or maximum-wage laws, competition laws, economic sanctions, restrictions on price fixing, or restrictions on contracting with second-class citizens or undocumented workers. The freedom to contract is the underpinning of laissez-faire economics and is a cornerstone of free-market libertarianism. Through freedom of contract, individuals possess a general freedom to choose with whom to contract, whether to contract or not, and on which terms to contract.
An exclusion clause is a term in a contract that seeks to restrict the rights of the parties to the contract.
Fundamental breach of contract is a controversial concept within the common law of contract. The doctrine was, in particular, nurtured by Lord Denning MR, but it did not find favour with the House of Lords.
Penal damages are liquidated damages which exceed reasonable compensatory damages, making them invalid under common law. While liquidated damage clauses set a pre-agreed value on the expected loss to one party if the other party were to breach the contract, penal damages go further and seek to penalise the breaching party beyond the reasonable losses from the breach. Many clauses which are found to be penal are expressed as liquidated damages clauses but have been seen by courts as excessive and thus invalid.
In English law, remoteness is a set of rules in both tort and contract, which limits the amount of compensatory damages for a wrong.
Photo Production Ltd v Securicor Transport Ltd[1980] UKHL 2 is an English contract law case decided by the House of Lords on construction of a contract and the doctrine of fundamental breach.
A Himalaya clause is a contractual provision expressed to be for the benefit of a third party who is not a party to the contract. Although theoretically applicable to any form of contract, most of the jurisprudence relating to Himalaya clauses relate to maritime matters, and exclusion clauses in bills of lading for the benefit of employees, crew, and agents, stevedores in particular.
English contract law is a body of law regulating contracts in England and Wales. With its roots in the lex mercatoria and the activism of the judiciary during the industrial revolution, it shares a heritage with countries across the Commonwealth, and to a lesser extent the United States. It is also experiencing gradual change because of the UK's membership of the European Union and international organisations like Unidroit. Any agreement that is enforceable in court is a contract. Because a contract is a voluntary obligation, in contrast to paying compensation for a tort and restitution to reverse unjust enrichment, English law places a high value on ensuring people have truly consented to the deals that bind them in court.
Suisse Atlantique Societe d'Armament SA v NV Rotterdamsche Kolen Centrale [1967] 1 AC 361 is a landmark English contract law decision of the House of Lords, concerning the notions of fundamental breach of contract and inequality of bargaining power.
Investors Compensation Scheme Ltd. v West Bromwich Building Society[1997] UKHL 28 is a frequently-cited English contract law case which laid down that a contextual approach must be taken to the interpretation of contracts.
Addis v Gramophone Co Ltd [1909] AC 488 is an old English contract law and UK labour law case, which used to restrict damages for non-pecuniary losses for breach of contract.
Interpreting contracts in English law is an area of English contract law, which concerns how the courts decide what an agreement means. It is settled law that the process is based on the objective view of a reasonable person, given the context in which the contracting parties made their agreement. This approach marks a break with previous a more rigid modes of interpretation before the 1970s, where courts paid closer attention to the formal expression of the parties' intentions and took more of a literal view of what they had said.
The doctrine of deviation is a particular aspect of contracts of carriage of goods by sea. A deviation is a departure from the "agreed route" or the "usual route", and it can amount to a serious breach of contract.
Karsales (Harrow) Ltd v Wallis [1956] EWCA Civ 4 is an English Court of Appeal decision which established fundamental breach as a major English contract law doctrine. Denning LJ MR gave the leading judgment replacing the Rule of Strict Construction, which require a literal approach to the construction of contract terms.
Certainty in English law sets out rules for how judges will interpret, sever or put contracts, trusts and other voluntary obligations into effect.
Penalties in English law are contractual terms which are not enforceable in the courts because of their penal character. Since at least 1720 it has been accepted as a matter of English contract law that if a provision in a contract constitutes a penalty, then that provision is unenforceable by the parties. However, the test for what constitutes a penalty has evolved over time. The Supreme Court most recently restated the law in relation to contractual penalties in the co-joined appeals of Cavendish Square Holding BV v Talal El Makdessi, and ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis.
Harbutt's "Plasticine" Ltd v Wayne Tank and Pump Co Ltd is an English contract law case involving the quantum of damages and the concept of fundamental breach. It was heard in the Court of Appeal by Lord Denning MR, Widgery LJ and Cross LJ.
Leduc v Ward is a leading English case on deviation within the law of carriage of goods by sea. The case also addresses bills of lading, and the parol evidence rule.