The Eurymedon (1975)
This case (The Eurymedon (1975) demonstrates that although anexisting contractual obligation cannot usually be consideration in anagreement between the contracting parties,
this is not always thecase
! The reasoning in the judgment in this case is a bit tortuous. This is probably because in fact the
of all the contractingparties were clear; the court struggled to find a way of delivering a judgement that reflected these intentions and was legally justifiable.
FACTS OF THE CASE
Owners of goodsCONTRACTCarriers of goodsStevedoresThe stevedores are negligentand damage the goods!
The owners of goods leave it too late to sue under the main contract – sotry to sue the stevedores, and argue that there is an
between them and the stevedores, and that a term of this contract is thatthe stevedores should have exercised due care in unloading the drillingequipment.Is this fair? When they entered into the main contract the owners wereaware of the limitation clause. Now they are trying to wriggle out of it on atechnicality!Now, the stevedores could not rely on the exemption clause as a term inthe original contract itself, as this would be contrary to the principles of privity of contract, even though the clause was for their benefit.
Carrierssubcontractto stevedoresto unloadgoods
I m p l i e
Contract to deliver a piece of machinery– contains clause that owners cannot suecarriers or their servant/agents after 1year if any damage occurs