ARTICLE
1 August 2008

Defining Delivery Periods

HF
Holman Fenwick Willan

Contributor

Holman Fenwick Willan logo

HFW's origins trace back to the early 19th century with the Holman family's maritime ventures in Topsham, England. They established key marine insurance and protection associations from 1832 to 1870. In 1883, Frank Holman began practicing law in London, founding what would become HFW.

The firm evolved through several partnerships and relocations, adopting the name Holman Fenwick & Willan in 1916. HFW expanded to meet clients' needs, diversifying into aerospace, commodities, construction, energy, insurance, and shipping. Today, it operates 21 offices across the Americas, Europe, the Middle East, and Asia Pacific, making it a leading global law firm.

HFW was among the first UK firms to internationalize, opening offices in Paris (1977) and Hong Kong (1978). Subsequent expansions included Singapore, Piraeus, Shanghai, Dubai, Melbourne, Brussels, Sydney, Geneva, Perth, Houston, Abu Dhabi, Monaco, the BVI, and Shenzhen. HFW also collaborates with Brazil’s top insurance and aviation law firm, CAR.

The High Court's decision in Cereal Investment Co (CIC) SA v. ED&F Man Sugar Ltd [2007] EWCA Comm. 2843 concerns how parties define delivery periods in international sale contracts.
United Kingdom International Law

The High Court's decision in Cereal Investment Co (CIC) SA v. ED&F Man Sugar Ltd [2007] EWCA Comm. 2843 concerns how parties define delivery periods in international sale contracts.

The case concerned a sale of sugar by ED&F Man to CIC FOB Santos. The "Shipment Period" clause in the contract stated, "One vessel only presenting October 2006 Shipment at Buyer's Option, with 10 days pre-advise of vessel arrival". The contract incorporated the Refined Sugar Association rules, which provide that if a vessel is presented for loading within a contractual delivery period and loading is not completed by the last day of the period, the seller must deliver and the buyer must take delivery of the cargo.

CIC opened a letter of credit requiring presentation of a bill of lading dated no later than 31 October 2006. Man rejected the l/c on the basis that it should allow presentation of a later b/l. CIC terminated the contract and claimed damages from Man. CIC argued that under the contract loading had to be completed by the end of October 2006, and that the "Shipment Period" clause should be read as "One vessel only presenting [for] October 2006 Shipment at Buyers option, with 10 days preadvise of vessel arrival.".

The High Court rejected CIC's arguments and found that the l/c did not comply with the terms of the contract. The Court held that the contract did not provide for a defined shipment period, and that the "Shipment Period" clause was to be read in two parts as (1) "One vessel only presenting October 2006" amd (2) "Shipment at Buyers option...". Shipment should commence when the buyer's vessel was presented for loading but did not have to be completed by 31 October 2006.

This case underlines again the need for care and precision in setting out delivery obligations in international sale contracts to avoid uncertainty and unpredicted consequences.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

Mondaq uses cookies on this website. By using our website you agree to our use of cookies as set out in our Privacy Policy.

Learn More