Lloyd's Maritime and Commercial Law Quarterly
THE PITFALL OF SUBJECTIVE RENUNCIATION
The Pro Victor
The recent case of SK Shipping (S) Pte Ltd v. Petroexport Ltd (The Pro Victor)
1 is a new addition to a significant body of commercial charterparty cases which witness the prominent role of the doctrine of anticipatory breach in this area. Apart from reasserting some orthodox principles of law under that doctrine, the Commercial Court ventured into a dangerous zone by suggesting that, for a renunciation of contract to arise, it was essential that the party alleging such a renunciation should subjectively believe in its existence.
On 17 August 2008, the claimant, SK Shipping, chartered its vessel, Pro Victor, to the defendant, Petroexport, for a voyage from Karachi in Pakistan carrying naphtha to Mailiao in Taiwan. The charterparty provided that the vessel was to start loading by 27 August and the lay days were to last for three consecutive days. After the charterparty was concluded, but before the vessel arrived in Karachi, the charterer found itself in some difficulties both in securing sufficient naphtha from its suppliers and in finding a buyer. The charterer’s failure to provide its suppliers with performance guarantees meant that no binding supply contract was concluded. The charterer thus gave instructions to the vessel on 26 August to slow steam. When the vessel arrived in Karachi, it was ordered to wait at the outer anchorage of the port. A copy of the charterparty was sent by the owner to the charterer for signature in order to procure freight tax exemption, but it was never returned. On the other front, the charterer’s contract for the sale of naphtha to Delta Oil fell through. Negotiations with alternative buyers led to the charterer’s putting up two proposals for a “change of itinerary” to the owner. Proposal 1, entailing a discharge of naphtha at Aqaba followed by a time charter trip to the Singapore/South Korea range, was acceptable to the owner but was eventually dropped by the charterer. Proposal 2, which was for a three-month time charter with a further three months at the charterer’s option, was rejected by the owner, which doubted the charterer’s business creditability and was unsatisfied with the rather low hire rate proposed.
It was from this time that news started to reach the owner that the charterer had lost its buyer and would not proceed with the charterparty. A series of email exchanges took place between the parties from 28 to 29 August. These were later relied upon by the owner as evidencing a renunciation on the charterer’s part. Broadly speaking, the owner made several requests for confirmation that the charterer would perform the charterparty, but these requests were met with evasive replies. These cited force majeure as an excuse,
LLOYD’S MARITIME AND COMMERCIAL LAW QUARTERLY
360