Jackson v Union Marine Insurance Co [1874]
Share
Jackson v Union Marine Insurance Co [1874] LR 10 CP 125 is a case that underscores the importance of considering the purpose of a contract when determining if it is impossible to perform.
A shipowner had entered into a charterparty with a charterer, outlining the delivery of nails to San Francisco. However, the ship ran aground, leading the charterer to withdraw from the charterparty. The shipowner then sought a claim against its insurer for the loss of freight, citing a 'peril of the sea.' The crucial argument revolved around frustration of the contract, as there would be no insurance claim if the charterer had breached the contract.
In the Exchequer Chamber's decision, the shipowner's claim was successful, with Bramwell B delivering key insights. Bramwell B emphasised that there was no breach of contract by the charterer since their withdrawal was excused by the non-availability of the ship, making the shipment impossible. Despite the ship being ready after repairs, the delay would have been too long for the charterers to fulfil the shipment. An implied condition precedent existed, stating that the ship should have arrived in time to pick up the nails.
This case highlights the broader concept of impossibility in frustration compared to common mistake. It draws attention to the case of Great Peace [2002], where a contract for the rescue of a vessel was not considered void for common mistake. Even though technically possible to perform, the rescue ship was too far away for a timely rescue. The judgement thus emphasises the need to assess impossibility in light of the contract's purpose, providing valuable guidance in contract law.
A shipowner had entered into a charterparty with a charterer, outlining the delivery of nails to San Francisco. However, the ship ran aground, leading the charterer to withdraw from the charterparty. The shipowner then sought a claim against its insurer for the loss of freight, citing a 'peril of the sea.' The crucial argument revolved around frustration of the contract, as there would be no insurance claim if the charterer had breached the contract.
In the Exchequer Chamber's decision, the shipowner's claim was successful, with Bramwell B delivering key insights. Bramwell B emphasised that there was no breach of contract by the charterer since their withdrawal was excused by the non-availability of the ship, making the shipment impossible. Despite the ship being ready after repairs, the delay would have been too long for the charterers to fulfil the shipment. An implied condition precedent existed, stating that the ship should have arrived in time to pick up the nails.
This case highlights the broader concept of impossibility in frustration compared to common mistake. It draws attention to the case of Great Peace [2002], where a contract for the rescue of a vessel was not considered void for common mistake. Even though technically possible to perform, the rescue ship was too far away for a timely rescue. The judgement thus emphasises the need to assess impossibility in light of the contract's purpose, providing valuable guidance in contract law.
