정기용선계약상 Hadley v. Baxendale 사건법리의 새로운 전개에 관한 연구 - Achilleas호 사건의 귀족원판결을 중심으로 -

In the Achilleas case raises a point concerning damages for late redelivery of a time charter. The issue is this: if a charterer is liable to pay damages to an owner for late redelivery of the charterer vessel, are those damages limited by the principles of remoteness to the difference between the charter rate and the market rate at the time of redelivery(if the latter is higher than the charter rate) over the length of the overrun period, that is to say from the due redelivery date until actual redelivery, or can the owner claim damages based on the loss of his next fixture? The charterers submitted that the overrun damages alternative, described by them as the normal measure of damages, corresponded to the first rule, and that the loss of fixture measure could be recovered in principle but only if those damages could be brought within the second rule. The arbitrators found that both parties were expressed in the chartering markets and that charterers’ counsel had rightly accepted in exchange with the tribunal that “not unlikely” test was met by results which would missing dates for ① a subsequent fixture, ② a dry docking and ③ a sale of the vessel. The charterers submitted that they had not assumed responsibility for the loss of any particular fixture. The arbitrator’s response was that the length of the follow-on fixture was irrelevant, unless it was an extravagant or unusual bargain. There was no evidence that it was, or that a distinction should be made between a trip or period charter. However, the owners said their losses that was a not unlikely consequence of the charterers’ breach. There was no special rule that the first limb could only lead to damages calculated by taking the difference between the market and the charter-party rate for the overrun. The arbitrators therefore concluded that the loss of fixture damages claimed by the owners fell within the first rule of Hadley v. Baxendale. They added that, if it were otherwise, there was no special knowledge at the date of the addendum which would have brought the claim within the second rule. The purpose of this study aims to analyse the new development on the legal principles of the Hadley v. Baxendale with decision House of Lords on the Achilleas.