Godard v.

Gray (1870)
Facts:
• Plaintifs Godard are Frenchmen who sued deendants who
are Englishmen on a charter party made at Sunderland.
•  This charter agreement contained a clause: “Penalty or non-
perormance o this agreement estimated amount o reight.!
•  The French court treated this clause as "#ing the amount o
li$uidated damages and rendered %udgment against
deendants
or the reight on & 'oyages.
• (n appeal the court reduced the amount to one 'oyage.
• )owe'er in English *aw had the passage +een +rought to
notice o the French tri+unal it would ha'e ,nown that in an
English charter-party such a clause is not the a+solute limit o
damages on either side the other party may ground his action
in

other clauses and may reco'er damages +eyond the amount

o the penalty i in %ustice they shall ound to e#ceed it.
• ut such was not +rought to the notice o the French
tri+unal that according to the interpretation put +y the
English law on such contract a penal clause o this sort was
in act idle and
inoperati'e.
•  it had +een they would ha'e interpreted the English
contract made in England according to English construction.
Issue/s: 

/(0 there is a +ar to the action +rought in England to enorce

that %udgment10(

Held:
  t is not an admitted principle o the law o nations that a State is
+ound to enorce within its territories the %udgment o a oreign
tri+unal. Se'eral o the continental nations1including France1
do not enorce the %udgments o other countries unless there
are
reciprocal treaties to that efect.
  n England which is go'erned +y common law %udgments are
enorced not +y 'irtue o a treaty +ut +ecause o a principle in
the case o Williams v. Jones which state that:
  “/here a court o competent %urisdiction has ad%udicated a
certain sum to +e due rom one person to another a legal
o+ligation arises to pay the sum on which an action o de+t to
enorce the %udgment may +e maintained. t is in this way that
the %udgments o oreign and colonial courts are supported
and
enorced.!
n order or the deendant to show that the court which
pronounced the %udgment had no %urisdiction to pronounce it
either +ecause they e#ceeded the %urisdiction gi'en to them +y
oreign law or +ecause he the deendant was not su+%ect to
that %urisdiction and oreign %udgment must +e e#amina+le.
2eendant may also show that the %udgment was o+tained +y
the raud o the plaintif or that would show that the deendant
was e#cused rom the perormance o the o+ligation.
• n English courts we enorce a legal o+ligation and we admit
any deense which shows that there is no legal o+ligation or a
legal e#cuse or not ul"lling it +ut in no case that we ,now o
is it easily pro'ed and re%ected it would gi'e the court much
trou+le to in'estigate it.