82,891
edits
Pioneer v TMT: Difference between revisions
no edit summary
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) m (Amwelladmin moved page Pioneer v TMT - Case Note to Pioneer v TMT) |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{cn}}{{cite|Pioneer Freight Futures|TMT Asia|2011|EWCH|1888}} | {{cn}}{{cite|Pioneer Freight Futures|TMT Asia|2011|EWCH|1888}} | ||
This was the second judgment handed down in proceedings, arising out of a series of [[forward freight agreement]]s between Pioneer and TMT. | |||
Having lost in the first go round, TMT adjusted its defence in light of the {{casenote|Marine Trade|Pioneer}} decision, such that the Section {{isdaprov|2(c)}} netting would be disapplied. | |||
So we had this scenario: | |||
Party A defaults while it is [[in-the-money]]. Party B invokes Section 2(a)(iii), sticks two fingers up and refuses to carry on. There are other Transactions under way and Party A heroically tries to carry on with them. but — clever — it purports to settle these transactions ''net'' under Section {{isdaprov|2(c)}}, against obligations it is due under other Transactions. | |||
INTERESTING. Okay, ''you'' don’t have to pay ''me'', but should ''I'' have to pay ''you'' more than I would otherwise have done, were it not for Section {{isdaprov|2(a)(iii)}} allowing me to suspend? | |||
Flaux J had earlier thought the answer to that was “no”. We may ba able to put this down to a basic misconception about how the contract more generally was supposed to work: He thought that a payment obligation once suspended was extinguished — an absurd idea — but one from which it would follow, if you were labouring under it, that one couldn’t possibly net settle future payments, since there was on this view nothing to net settle. But, ohj dear oh dear: {{isdaprov|2(a)(iii)}} is so ''[[litigationey]]''. | |||
Then the parties settled — but like the winger who arrives late to a punch-up between two front rows, Gloster J piled in anyway and gave her judgment for the sake of the market. We can be glad she did, because she got it right, and Flaux J’s was a horror show. Still we wonder whether there was any buyer’s remorse on the settlement. | |||
She rejected TMT’s new argument opining that Flaux J in was wrong on the Section {{isdaprov|2(c)}} netting issue. Pioneer’s view was consistent with the {{isdama}}’s commercial scheme and the language of the relevant provisions. | |||
{{2(a)(iii)}} | {{2(a)(iii)}} | ||