Истец (Покупатель) и Ответчик (Продавец) заключили договор купли-продажи яхты,находящейся в стадии постройки. Продавец намеревался присвоить судну класс Итальянского судоходного регистра и зарегистрировать его на о. Мэн. Яхта прошла предрегистрационный сюрвей на о. Мэн с замечаниями местного Регистра. Несмотря на это был подписан протокол приемки-передачи судна. Затем покупатель решил зарегистрировать яхту в Люксембурге. Он потребовал возмещения убытков в связи с недостатками, выявленными Регистром на о. Мэн. Продавец возражал: недостатки судна были устранены на момент окончания постройки яхты. Суд установил, что недостатки судна действительно были устранены на момент окончания постройки и поставки судна, так что оно соответствовало классу, присвоенному Итальянским судоходным регистром, а единственной причиной неприсвоения класса судну было решение его собственника о регистрации в Люксембурге, а не на о. Мэн
Riva Bella SA v Tamsen Yachts GmbH [2011] EWHC 1434 (Comm)
The Claimant buyer was a company set up specifically for the purposes of yacht purchase
and charter, and the Defendant seller was a German company which had commissioned
construction of a yacht from a Turkish shipyard. At the date of the sale contract, the yacht
was in the course of construction.
The Defendant intended the yacht to be classed by RINA, and it was to be flagged in the Isle
of Man. The sale contract stated that the vessel was to be “RINA Charter Class (MCA)”, and
included a document stating that the vessel’s top speed at light displacement would be 30
knots plus or minus 10%.
The Isle of Man Registry carried out pre-registration surveys of the vessel, and produced a
report and list of deficiencies, but despite this the vessel was delivered and both parties
signed a protocol of delivery and acceptance (“PDA”). The vessel was then surveyed by
RINA and again by the Registry. The Claimant subsequently decided that the yacht would be
flagged in Luxembourg, and it was surveyed again by RINA.
The Claimant claimed damages for breach of the sale contract on the basis that various
deficiencies existed at the date of delivery. The Claimant also alleged that the vessel did not
comply with the speed warranty in the contract. The Defendant argued that the Claimant had
accepted the yacht by signing the PDA, and so was not entitled to bring the claim. In any
event, there were no deficiencies at the date of delivery which constituted a breach of
contract or, if there were, they had been rectified.
The Court upheld some of the Claimant’s damages claims but not others, and also upheld
the Defendant’s counterclaim in respect of crew costs and other costs and expenses. The
Court held that the Claimant’s acceptance of the vessel, and signing of the PDA, did not
preclude a claim for damages. The agreement by the Claimant to take delivery even through
the vessel was not fully classed and certain works remained outstanding did amount to a
contractual variation. However, the agreement was simply a temporary convenience and did
not relieve the Defendant of its obligation to complete the necessary work to the contractual
standard in due course.
Further, the Court held that while the contract provided that class was to be RINA Charter
Class (MCA), that did not mean that on delivery the yacht would comply objectively with the
LY2 code of technical standards produced by the MCA and applicable to large commercial
yachts. What mattered was whether the yacht complied with LY2 as applied by RINA, or
possibly the Isle of Man Registry.
The Court also found that, after delivery, the deficiencies identified by the surveys had been
rectified, and at that stage the vessel met the physical requirements of RINA Charter Class
MCA. The only reason she was not classed as such was because the Claimant decided to
register her in Luxembourg rather than the Isle of Man.
Источник: REEDSMITH
SHIPPING GROUP MONTHLY BULLETIN. – 2011. – JULY. – Р. 16 – 17.
