Share on LinkedInShare on LinkedIn

ARTICLE · 08 JULY 2010

Interpretation of Quality Clause in Naphtha Contract, Damages for Breach and Hedging Issues

was the seller and C the buyer under an FOB Port Harcourt sale of naphtha.

United KingdomLitigation, Mediation & Arbitration
Scarlett Henwood
Scarlett Henwood

Choil Trading SA v Sahara Energy Resources Ltd [2010] EWHC 374 (Comm)

Background Facts

S was the seller and C the buyer under an FOB Port Harcourt sale of naphtha. The contract provided "Quality: PHRC naphtha quality" and the specs referred to in the quality clause were taken from an analysis of a sample provided by S's seller, Port Harcourt Refinery Company ("PHRC"). In pre-contract exchanges between the parties, the contractual significance of which was disputed, S stated that the product was to be sold "as is".

C then on-sold the cargo to P. The contract between C and P provided as part of the specification "Mtbe mg/kg 50ppm max". MTBE is Methyl Tertiair Buthyl Ether, a man-made substance which is not a by-product of the production of naphtha. That on-sale was on terms that if the cargo did not meet the specification, P could renegotiate the price and C had no obligation if the cargo was off spec.

We operate a free-to-view policy, asking only that you register in order to read all of our content. Please login or register to view the rest of this article.

See more popular content from