| From: | Andrew Tettenborn <a.m.tettenborn@swansea.ac.uk> |
| To: | Robert Stevens <robert.stevens@law.ox.ac.uk> |
| obligations@uwo.ca | |
| Date: | 28/06/2017 10:44:48 UTC |
| Subject: | Re: New Flamenco |
In a sense the case was slightly easier than most, because the causal link between breach and gain was very weak. OK: the owners sold in disgust when the charterers threw up the charter. But they could equally well have sold for a capital sum during the charter. Ships don't have the same premium for vacant possession that houses do.
Andrew

Important UKSC decision on mitigation/incidental benefits
I had thought the CA were right, but the UKSC clearly disagrees. Am a bit surprised, but I'm marking and haven't the time to think about it properly.
Views?R
Andrew Tettenborn Professor of Commercial Law, Swansea University
Institute for International Shipping
and Trade Law
|
Andrew
Tettenborn Athro yn y Gyfraith Fasnachol, Prifysgol Abertawe
Sefydliad y
Gyfraith Llongau a Masnach Ryngwladol |
See us on Twitter: @swansea_dst
Read the IISTL Blog: iistl.wordpress.com
|
Disclaimer: This email (including any attachments) is for the use of the intended recipient only and may contain confidential information and/or copyright material. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender immediately and delete this email and all copies from your system. Any unauthorized use, disclosure, reproduction, copying, distribution, or other form of unauthorized dissemination of the contents is expressly prohibited. |