TTMI Sarl v Statoil ASA [2011] EWHC 1150
TTMI instructed a firm of ship brokers to sub-charter its vessel to Statoil. In the "recap email" (which is an email commonly used to confirm the previously agreed terms of a charter), the shipbrokers erroneously gave the name of TTMI's parent company as the owner, instead of TTMI. The voyage was fully performed, but Statoil delivered the ship back late, so TTMI made a demurrage claim. The claim was referred to an arbitrator who struck out the claim on the grounds that the wrong naming of the owner meant there was no contract (and thus the arbitrator had no authority to act). TTMI appealed.
The High Court (Beatson J) allowed the appeal and remitted the case back to the arbitrator. He agreed that the recap email did not, on the evidence, bring a contract into effect. Nevertheless, a contract had come into existence by performance of the parties. It was relevant that TTMI had instructed the vessel to take on Statoil's cargo; the notices of readiness which were accepted on behalf of Statoil identified TTMI as the time charterer; the voyage was fully performed; the invoice for freight stated "the amount to TTMI" and required payment to TTMI's bank account, and payment was made to that account. Also, Statoil dealt with TTMI throughout.
In this case, the Judge made it clear that he preferred to hold that there was a contract, rather than to award TTMI a quantum merit claim. This is in contrast to some other recent cases where the Court has said that it does not matter if no contract can be found, since a quantum meruit award can be ordered instead.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
