Glynn v Margetson [1] is an English case on the law of carriage of goods by sea which established the "Main Purpose Rule" in relation to deviation.
| Glynn v Margetson [1893] A.C. 351 | |
|---|---|
.svg) | |
| Court | House of Lords |
| Citation | [1893] A.C. 351 |
| Keywords | |
Facts
editA vessel, the Zena, was chartered to carry a perishable cargo of Seville oranges from Málaga to a marmalade factory in Liverpool. The bill of lading provided that the master was "at liberty to visit any ports in any order". Although a carrier has a duty to "proceed with reasonable despatch" [2] and not to deviate from the agreed course, the ship visited other ports in Spain and North Africa before heading for Liverpool. The deviation caused delays in delivering the cargo, during which time both the cargo and the market for oranges had deteriorated. The cargo-owner sued.
Judgment
editThe House of Lords held that the "liberty clause" was in effect an exemption clause which sought to limit the carrier's liability for loss caused through unjustifiable deviation. The court went on to establish the "Main Purpose Rule" which provided that no exemption rule may cut into the main purpose of the contract.[3] Accordingly, the carrier was not permitted the protection of the liberty clause and thus was liable for the loss.
Lord Herschell LC declared: ‘Where general words are used in a printed form which are obviously intended to apply, ...to a particular contract, ... I think you are justified in looking at the main object[4] and intent of the contract and in limiting the general words used, having in view that object and intent.’
Significance
editAlthough the liberty clause could not be relied upon to condone major breach, it follows that exemption clauses might be allowed to excuse breaches of peripheral or minor obligations.
The Main Purpose Rule was subsequently adopted by the general English contract law in the 1956 case of Karsales v Wallis, recast as the "Fundamental Breach" doctrine. The Karsales case has since been limited in effect by subsequent decisions and statutes:
- The 1967 House of Lords decision of the Suisse Atlantique,[5][6]
- The Photo Production v Securicor 1980,[7]
- The Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977, and
- The Consumer Rights Act 2015.
Although the effect of Karsales has been blunted, the rule in Glynn v Margetson remains as sharp as ever, although the law on deviation was diluted by Art IV Rule 4 of the Hague-Visby Rules.
Glynn v Margetson was cited in:
See also
editReferences
edit- ^ Glynn v Margetson 1893, A.C. 351
- ^ M’Andrew v Adams (1834) 1 Bing NC 29
- ^ In this case, the main obligation was to carry the perishable cargo of seville oranges to Liverpool with "due despatch".
- ^ "Main object" became the "main purpose".
- ^ Suisse Atlantique Societe d'Armament SA v NV Rotterdamsche Kolen Centrale [1967] 1 AC 361
- ^ See Harbutt's "Plasticine" Ltd v Wayne Tank and Pump Co Ltd [1970] 1 QB 447, [1970] 1 All ER 225, [1970] 2 WLR 198, [1970] 1 Lloyds Rep 15, (where the Court of Appeal effectively ignored the Suisse Atlantique).
- ^ Photo Production Ltd v Securicor Transport Ltd [1980] UKHL 2
- ^ Homburg Houtimport BV v Agrosin Private Ltd (the ‘Starsin’) HL (House of Lords, [2003] UKHL 12, Bailii, Times 17-Mar-03, Gazette 15-May-03, [2003] 2 WLR 711, [2004] 1 AC 715, [2003] 1 CLC 921, 2003 AMC 913, [2003] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 571, [2003] 1 All ER (Comm) 625, [2003] 2 All ER 785, [2003] 1 LLR 571)
- ^ [1982] EWCA Civ 5, [1983] 1 All ER 108, [1983] QB 284)