В публикации рассмотрено дело, решение по которому недавно вынес Апелляционный суд.
Российская пшеничная мука была продана на условиях ФОБ Новороссийск. Правительство РФ объявило запрет на экспорт, когда судно уже было номинировано. В контракте поставки на случай его нарушения было предусмотрено, что по требованию контрагента стороны, нарушившей контракт, такой контрагент вправе по их выбору после извещения нарушителя контракта купить или продать, и такая купля-продажа определит цену в условиях неисполнения обязательств. Если подобное право не будет использовано, и стороны не смогут согласовать сумму убытка, оценка понесенного ущерба будет произведена в арбитражном порядке. Поскольку непосредственно сторонам ситуацию урегулировать не удалось, возник спор, рассмотренный в арбитраже ГАФТА. Как арбитраж, так и английский суд поддержали аргументы покупателей, которые добились таким образом справедливости, но не коммерческого успеха.
GAFTA prohibition and default clauses – sellers’ cancellation pursuant to prohibition clause held to be repudiatory
The Facts
Russian milling wheat was sold FOB Novorossiysk.
A prohibition clause read as follows:
“In the case of prohibition of export, blockade or hostilities or in case of any executive or legislative act done by or on behalf of the government of the country of origin of the goods, or of the country from which the goods are to shipped, restricting export, whether partially or otherwise, any such restriction shall be deemed by both parties to apply to this contract and to the extent of such total or partial restriction to prevent fulfilment whether by shipment or by any other means whatsoever and to that extent this contract or any unfulfilled portion thereof shall be cancelled. Sellers shall advise Buyers without delay with the reasons therefore and, if required, Sellers must produce proof to justify the cancellation.”
After the buyers had nominated a vessel to load, the Russian government published an export ban which extended over, and beyond, the contractual delivery period of 7 days. The ban was published 18 days before the commencement of the contractual delivery period.
Immediately upon the publication of the ban, sellers claimed cancellation. Buyers contended that the cancellation was repudiatory and claimed substantial damages under a cancellation clause which read as follows:
“In default of fulfilment of contract by either party, the following provisions shall apply:
(a) The party other than the defaulter shall, at their discretion have the right, after serving notice on the defaulter, to sell or purchase, as the case may be, against the defaulter, and such sale or purchase shall establish the default price
(b) If either party be dissatisfied with such default price or if the right at (a) is not exercised and damages cannot be mutually agreed, then the assessment of damages shall be settled by arbitration.
(c) The damages payable shall be based on, but not limited to, the difference between the contract price and either the default price established under (a) above or the actual or estimated value of the goods on the date of default established under (b) above.
(d) In all cases the damages shall, in addition, include any proven additional expenses which would directly and naturally result in the ordinary course of events from the defaulter’s breach of contract, but shall in no case include loss of profit on any sub-contracts made by the party defaulted against or others unless the arbitrator(s) or board of appeal, having regard to special circumstances, shall in his/their sole and absolute discretion think fit.
(e) Damages, if any, shall be computed on the quantity called for, but if no such quantity has been declared then on the mean contract quantity and any option available to either party shall be deemed to have been exercised accordingly in favour of the mean contract quantity.”
Presumably after the expiry of the ban, sellers offered to reinstate the contract. This was refused by buyers.
Sellers argued that the plain meaning of the prohibition clause entitled them to cancel. Buyers argued that because the possibility existed that the ban might be revoked, sellers had to wait and see before cancelling.
Findings
Both the first tier tribunal and the GAFTA Appeal Board upheld the buyers’ argument. The sellers suffered a similar fate before Hamblen J on appeal.
Hamblen found support for his conclusions in two decisions, both distinguishable on their facts: Sanday v Cox McEuen (1922) 10 Ll. L.R.459 and Pancommerce v Veecheema [1983] 2 Lloyd’s Rep.304.
He held that a causal link was required between the ban and the frustration of the contract.
Even though, with the knowledge of hindsight, sellers would have been entitled to cancel because the ban was not revoked and extended over the delivery period, buyers were held entitled to exact a strict application of the default provision. Damages were to be assessed at the time of sellers’ repudiation, irrespective of the train of further events.
The Court of Appeal (Moore-Bick, Floyd and Christopher Clarke LJJ) dismissed sellers’ appeal.
Commentary
“Prohibition” must include a declaration, prospective in effect, as was the export ban in this case.
Requiring actual realization of the prohibition removes the possibility of forward planning which is one of the obvious aims of the clause.
The outcome makes little or no commercial sense.
Источник: http://charterpartycases.com/case/375-bunge-s-a-v-nidera-b-v-2013-ewhc-84-comm