251 / 364
Special travel arrangements have been made
with G.I.E., whereby people travelling by train
will be able to obtain the return ticket for the
single ticket rate. Hotel bookings will be handled
by Dermot Moloney of the Southern Law Associ
ation, at 44 South Mall, Cork. Bookings will
commence on the 1st September and close on
10th October. Full details and registration forms
will be sent to all solicitors by post. As it is anti
cipated that the attendance will be double that
of Mullingar, those intending to participate should
book early.
OUT OF DATE JURY SYSTEM
Lord Parker when addressing officers passing
out from the senior staff course in Basingstoke,
stated that under the present system far too many
guilty men were discharged, and this was largely-
due to the jury system. He expressed the opinion
that many were of opinion that the jury stystni
had outlived its usefulness. He said that there
was much to be said for giving a man's previous
convictions during a case and not withholding
them until or unless he was convicted. Speaking
of the composition of juries he stated that at one
session 15 per cent of the jury were found to have
had criminal convictions. He added :
"I some
times wonder how anyone gets convicted."
PRACTICE DIRECTION
The Hon. Mr. Justice Murnaghan has given
the following practice direction : —
A. The following practice shall be observed hence
forth in applications for approval of settle
ments in which infants are involved in order
to avoid the disclosure in open court of the
strength or weakness of the plaintiff's case.
1. That where there shall be exhibited in the
grounding affidavit:
(a) a short opinion on the issue of liability
of the one of the counsel retained on
behalf of the plaintiff containing a
concise statement of
the reasons for
such opinion;
(b) plain typed copies of manuscript re
ports bv doctors or surgeons (with the
originals).
2. No such opinion or report shall be read
aloud in Court at the hearing of the ap
plication.
B. If the plaintiff seeks the Court's decision as to
whether a sum lodged in Court by the de
fendant should be accepted, or the action should
go
to trial, or waiver by the defendant of
notice of acceptance of the lodgment should
be proved at the hearing. An application may
be made so
that
the appropriate ancillary
directions may be given by the Court at such
hearing in the event of a decision that such
sum should be accepted.
—
The Irish Law Times and Solicitors journal,
June 27th, 1964.
CASES OF THE MONTH
Contract—Fundamental Breach
The respondents agreed in December 1965 to
charter a vessel from the appellants for the car
riage of coal from the United States to Europe,
the charter to remain in force "for a total of two
years consecutive voyages/' The vessel was to sail
and proceed "with all possible dispatch"
to a
port in the United States and there load on each
voyage a cargo of coal and being so loaded, pro
ceed "with all possible dispatch"
to a port in
Europe. Demurrage of 1,000 dollars a day was
payable for detention beyond the days fixed for
loading and unloading. In September 1957 the
appellants considered themselves entitled to treat
the charterparty as repudiated by reason of delays
in loading and unloading, but it was agreed that
the contract should continue without prejudice to
the dispute. The appellants claim to be entitled
to freight for nine, or alternatively six, additional
voyages which they said the vessel should have
completed less demurrage payments received. The
respondents claimed that their liability was limited
to the demurrage payments. The appellants main
tained that the delays amounted to a fundamental
breach entitling them
to treat the contract as
repudiated and
that
the demurrage provisions
therefore did not apply.
Held by the House of Lords that there is no
rule of law that no exceptions clause can excuse
a fundamental breach of contract or breach of a
fundamental term. The expression "fundamental
breach" means neither more nor less than the type
of breach which entitles the innocent party to
treat the contract as repudiated. On the facts of
the case, assuming there was a fundamental breach,
the appellants had elected to affiirm the contract
and their claim was limited to the agreed sums
for demurrage. Karsaces Co.
v Wallis
(156)
Reversed.
(Suisse Athlantique Societe D'Arment Maiit-
time S.A. v N.V. Rotterdamsche Kolen Centrale
(1966) 2 W.L.R. 944; 2 All E.R. 61).
33