Tarrabochia v Hickie: 1856

References: (1856) 1 Hurlstone and Norman 183
Coram: Pollock CB, Bramwell B
Ratio: The parties had agreed that the ship would sail on a particular day, but there was no express term to state the importance of any breach.
Held: Bramwell B said: ‘No doubt it is competent for the parties, if they think fit, to declare in express terms that any matter shall be a condition precedent, but when they have not so expressed themselves, it is necessary for those who construe the instrument to see whether they intend to do it. Since, however, they could have done it, those who construe the instrument should be chary in doing for them that which they might, but have not done for themselves.’
Jurisdiction: England and Wales
This case is cited by:

  • Cited – Hong Kong Fir Shipping Co v Kawasaki Kisen Kaisha Ltd CA ([1962] 2 QB 26, Bailii, [1961] EWCA Civ 7, [1962] 1 All ER 474)
    The plaintiffs had recently acquired the ship the ‘Hong Kong Fir’ and contracted to charter it to the defendants, but being late in delivering it, the defendants cancelled the charterparty contract. The plaintiffs said the repudiation was wrongful, . .

(This list may be incomplete)

Last Update: 15 June 2020
Ref: 266192