Yew Huoi, How & Associates | Leading Malaysia Law Firm

Menu

SHIP SALE – LOSING THE DEAL, LOSING THE DAMAGES? THE LILA LISBON CASE AND THE LIMITS OF MARKET LOSS RECOVERY

1. Summary and Facts:

The case The Lila Lisbon [2025] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 101, Orion Shipping and Trading Ltd (“OSAT”) agreed to sell the Capesize bulk carrier Lila Lisbon to Great Asia Maritime Ltd (“GAM”) under a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) based on the Norwegian Saleform 2012. The delivery deadline was extended multiple times, but OSAT failed to deliver by the final deadline on 15.10.2021. GAM terminated the agreement and sought damages, claiming the difference between the contract price and the vessel’s market price at termination. The tribunal awarded GAM USD1.85 million in damages under Clause 14 of the MOA. OSAT appealed, arguing that such damages were only recoverable in a case of repudiatory breach.

2. Legal issues:

i. Whether a buyer, who lawfully cancels a sale contract under Clause 14 due to the seller’s “proven negligence” in failing to deliver by the cancellation date, is entitled to recover loss of bargain damages in the absence of a repudiatory breach?

3. Court Findings:

• The court ruled in favor of OSAT, setting aside the tribunal’s award of loss of bargain damages.
• There was no positive contractual obligation on OSAT to tender notice of readiness by the cancelling date, only a right for the buyer to cancel if delivery was not made.
• Clause 14B of the MOA did not automatically entitle the buyer to loss of bargain damages unless the seller was in repudiatory breach.
• The failure to deliver did not amount to non-delivery under Section 51 of the Sale of Goods Act 1979, as the cancellation right in Clause 14 was a discretionary buyer’s right rather than a seller’s obligation.
• The case was distinguishable from traditional sale of goods disputes where non-delivery gives rise to market loss damages.

4. Practical Implications:

• Buyers relying on a contract’s default clause to recover market loss damages must ensure the clause expressly provides for such a remedy.
• The judgment clarifies that cancellation under an MOA’s default clause does not necessarily equate to repudiatory breach or entitle a buyer to market damages.
• Sellers can benefit from contractual language that limits liability, while buyers should ensure that compensation clauses clearly cover market loss.
• In a rising market, buyers must assess whether waiting to establish a repudiatory breach is necessary before terminating, as a wrongful termination could have legal and financial repercussions.

Back to Latest Legal Updates

Recent Post

REGULATIONS – GENERAL AGREEMENT ON TARIFFS AND TRADE (GATT 1947 ) – ARTICLE I

This legal update explores key provisions of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT 1947), focusing on Article I (Most-Favoured-Nation Treatment), Article II (Schedules of Concessions), Article XX (General Exceptions), and Article XXI (Security Exceptions). Article I mandates that any trade advantage granted by one contracting party to another must be extended unconditionally to all other parties. Article II ensures that imported goods from contracting parties receive treatment no less favourable than that outlined in agreed schedules, while also regulating permissible taxes and charges. Articles XX and XXI provide exceptions for measures necessary to protect public morals, health, security interests, and compliance with domestic laws. The provisions reflect the foundational principles of non-discrimination, transparency, and fair trade, while allowing for limited, well-defined exceptions. This summary is intended to provide a concise reference for businesses and legal practitioners involved in international trade law.

Read More »
3 April ,2025 No Comments

ROAD ACCIDENT – INSURANCE COMPANY STRIKES BACK: HIGH COURT OVERTURNS ROAD ACCIDENT CLAIM

When a motorcyclist claimed he was knocked down in an accident, the Sessions Court ruled in his favor, holding the other rider fully liable. But the insurance company wasn’t convinced. They appealed, arguing that there was no proof of a collision and even raised suspicions of fraud. The High Court took a closer look – and in a dramatic turn, overturned the decision, dismissed the claim, and awarded RM60,000 in costs to the insurer. This case is a stark reminder that in court, assumptions don’t win cases – evidence does.

Read More »
24 February ,2025 No Comments

CHARTERPARTY – LIEN ON SUB-FREIGHTS: CLARIFYING OWNERS’ RIGHTS AGAINST SUB-CHARTERERS

In Marchand Navigation Co v Olam Global Agri Pte Ltd and Anor [2025] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 92, the Singapore High Court upheld the owners’ right to enforce a lien on sub-freights under Clause 18 of the NYPE 1946 charterparty, ruling that the phrase ‘any amounts due under this charter’ was broad enough to cover unpaid bunker costs. Despite an arbitration clause between the owners and charterers, the sub-charterer was obligated to honor the lien, as it was not a party to the arbitration agreement. This decision reinforces that a properly exercised lien on sub-freights can be an effective tool for owners to recover unpaid sums, even in the presence of disputes between charterers and sub-charterers.

Read More »
24 February ,2025 No Comments

SHIP SALE – LOSING THE DEAL, LOSING THE DAMAGES? THE LILA LISBON CASE AND THE LIMITS OF MARKET LOSS RECOVERY

In “The Lila Lisbon” [2025] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 101, the court ruled that a buyer cancelling under Clause 14 of the Norwegian Salesform Memorandum of Agreement is not automatically entitled to loss of bargain damages unless the seller is in repudiatory breach. The case clarifies that failing to deliver by the cancellation date does not constitute non-delivery under the English Sale of Goods Act 1979, as the clause grants the buyer a discretionary right rather than imposing a firm obligation on the seller. This decision highlights the importance of precise contract drafting, particularly in ship sale agreements, where buyers must ensure that compensation for market loss is explicitly provided for.

Read More »
24 February ,2025 No Comments

CRIMINAL – KIDNAPPING – NO ESCAPE FROM JUSTICE: COURT UPHOLDS LIFE SENTENCE IN HIGH-PROFILE KIDNAPPING CASE

A 10-year-old child was abducted outside a tuition center, held captive, and released only after a RM1.75 million ransom was paid. The appellants were arrested following investigations, with their statements leading to the recovery of a portion of the ransom money. Despite denying involvement, they were convicted under the Kidnapping Act 1961 and sentenced to life imprisonment and ten strokes of the whip. Their appeal challenged the identification process, the validity of the charge, and the admissibility of evidence, but the court found the prosecution’s case to be strong, ruling that the appellants had acted in furtherance of a common intention and were equally liable for the crime.

Read More »
24 February ,2025 No Comments
en_USEN
zh_TWZH ms_MYMY en_USEN
× Contact Us