Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorShmilovits, Lironen
dc.date.accessioned2018-09-10T22:18:23Z
dc.date.available2018-09-10T22:18:23Z
dc.date.issued2016-02-15en
dc.identifier.issn0306-2945en
dc.identifier.urihttps://www.repository.cam.ac.uk/handle/1810/280105
dc.description.abstractPST Energy 7 Shipping LLC v OW Bunker Malta Ltd (The Res Cogitans) was a contest between two arguably incredible propositions. On one side, the appellant shipowners submitted, by an ingenious argument, that they did not have to pay for bunker fuel which they had ordered, received and consumed. On the other side, the respondent oil suppliers countered that the Sale of Goods Act 1979 ("SGA") did not apply to the supply contract. The Court of Appeal opted for the least implausible outcome, holding that the supply contract was not a contract for the sale of goods, and so the shipowners did have to pay for the fuel. In policy terms, the Court’s reasoning challenges recent orthodoxy on contractual interpretation.en
dc.titleTesting the Limits of Interpretationen
dc.typeOther
prism.publicationDate2016en
prism.publicationNameLloyd's Maritime and Commercial Law Quarterlyen
dc.identifier.doi10.17863/CAM.27469
rioxxterms.licenseref.urihttp://www.rioxx.net/licenses/all-rights-reserveden
rioxxterms.licenseref.startdate2016-02-15en
rioxxterms.typeOtheren
rioxxterms.freetoread.startdate2100-01-01


Files in this item

Thumbnail

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record