The Moorcock - Case Note

The Jolly Contrarian Law Reports from the Contrarian’s Bench Division. Go Premium Editorial Board of the JCLR: Managing Editor: Lord Justice Cocklecarrot M.R. · General Editor: Sir Jerrold Baxter-Morley, K.C. · Principle witness: Mrs. Pinterman Common law | Litigation | Contract | Tort |Index: Click ᐅ to expand: Case notes Comments? Questions? Suggestions? Requests? Insults? We’d love to 📧 hear from you. Sign up for our newsletter.

Plaintiff ship-owners contracted with the defendant wharf owner to discharge a ship at their jetty on a tidal stretch of the River Thames where, at low tide, boats would regularly ground. The defendants had no rights or control over the river-bed, took no steps to determine whether it was safe and, at low tide, the Moorcock’s hull was damaged upon grounding. The plaintiffs claimed for breach of contract, seeking to imply a term that the river bed was safe.

The defendants contended there was no express term obliging them to ascertain the state of the river-bed, no implied warranty that it was a safe, nor had there been any representation that it had been checked.

The ship-owners argued it must have been an implied term of the contract that the river-bed was safe, because the jetty could not be used at all without the vessel grounding at low water. The defendants must be held to have warranted they had taken reasonable care to ascertain the river-bed was safe for the ship to lie on.

The ship owners were successful in their claim. The whole purpose of the contract was to use a jetty that could not be used without the vessel grounding. There must, therefore, be an implied warranty that the defendants had taken reasonable steps to ensure the vessel could ground without suffering damage.

See also

• Implied term