No CrossRef data available.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 16 January 2009
Year by year in lecturing on the law of contracts I am asked by successive generations of students whether the Polemis decision applies to the measure of damages for breach of contract. This decision is one which gives no practitioner sleepless nights, but troubles the teacher and the student a good deal. It seems therefore worth while to preserve from destruction such documentary information as may throw any light upon the case beyond what is afforded by the reports of the judgments of Sankey J. (as he then was) and of the Court of Appeal. Accordingly, by the courtesy of Messrs. Holman, Fenwick and Willan, the solicitors for the owners of the Thrasyvoulos, I am able to print the following documents:—
1. Points of Claim.
2. Letters of April 26, 1920, from charterers' solicitors demanding particulars and of April 28, 1920, from owners' solicitors in reply.
3. Points of Defence.
4. Respondents' (charterers') Contentions.
5. Claimants' (owners') Contentions.
6. Award and Special Case dated December 20, 1920.
7. Further Finding by the Arbitrators dated February 11, 1921.
8. Judgment of Sankey J. dated May 5, 1921, which, though reported in 26 Commercial Cases and 37 Times Law Reports, is reprinted here from the transcript for the benefit of readers to whom these reports may not be available.
1 (1921) 26 Com. Cas: 281; 37 T. L. R. 696.
2 Re Arbitration between Plemis and Another and Furness, Withy & Co., Ltd. [1921] 3 K. B. 560.
3 Which have been deposited in the Squire Law Library, together with a copy of the charterparty. It is summarized in [1921] 3 K. B. at p. 561, and clauses 3, 5, and the relevant portion of 21 are quoted in the judgment of Sankey J.
4 See in particular, Pollock, , ‘Law of Torts’ (13th ed. 1929), pp. 32–41Google Scholar and 582, and in L. Q. R. xxxviii (1922), pp. 165—167; Salmond, , ‘Law of Torts’ 7th ed. (by Stallybrass, 1928), pp. 152–175Google Scholar; and Goodhart, , ‘Liability for Consequences of a Negligent Act,’ in ‘Cambridge Legal Essays’ (1926).Google Scholar