2,051
edits
Changes
From DMC
no edit summary
'''Summary'''
In the context of a long-term time-charter, which the Charterers had repudiated by reason of the Vessel’s repeated failure to meet the speed and consumption warranties given in the charter, the Court of Appeal, in reaffirming the High Court judgment, available [[Link titleSK_Shipping_Europe_v_Capital_VLCC_3_Corp_]], held that:
(1) Misrepresentation: the representations of the vessel’s performance were no more extensive than the High Court had held and the 0.5 knot margin on the warranty made no difference to that conclusion, and the representations were not repeated during negotiations, so were not “embedded” into the charter;
