A secret weapon
Usual reasoning that, the doctrine was a satisfactory tool when it fought injustice in cases when contract expressly allowed one party to significantly limit or exclude all together its liability, is to certain extent correct only when we speak about consumer contracts. In his colourful speech in George Mitchell (Chesterhall) Ltd v Finney Lock Seedy Ltd  1 All ER 108 at 113-114 Lord Denning MR reasoned development of the doctrine of fundamental breach as a necessary ‘secret weapon’ with the glorious aim to fight an idol called ‘freedom of contract’, which was all on the side of the big concern which had the use of the printing press . His Lordship pathetically said at p.113:
All this was done in the name of ‘freedom of contract'’. But the freedom was all on the side of the big concern which had the use of the printing press. No freedom for the little man who took the ticket or order form or invoice. The big concern said, ‘Take it or leave it.’ The little man had no option but to take it. The big concern could and did exempt itself from liability in its own interest without regard to the little man. It got away with it time after time. When the courts said to the big concern, ‘You must put it in clear words,’ the big concern had no hesitation in doing so. It knew well that the little man would never read the exemption clauses or understand them
A little further in his judgment Lord Denning MR enumerated many cases to illustrate this "abuse of power, by the strong against the weak" where it was "no freedom for the little man who took the ticket or order form or invoice". When, however, we look at the list we can see that in "shipping related" part of those cases: Glynn v Margetson & Co  AC 351, [1891-4] All ER Rep 693, Cunard Steamship Co Ltd v Buerger  AC 1,  All ER Rep 103; Canada Steamship Lines Ltd v R  1 All ER 305,  AC 192, Sze Hai Tong Bank Ltd v Rambler Cycle Co Ltd  3 All ER 182,  AC 576 one would hardly find any story of ‘little man’ misery in front of ‘big concern’. And if we start our research from case law on marine deviation of the eighteenth and the nineteenth century there will be no ‘little man’ at all, but corporate bodies only.
Freedom of contract
It was ‘freedom of contract’ of course which gave to the parties bargaining power to negotiate their contract as they like, taking or removing optional clauses, which was also sustained by the law as Lord Ellenborough said in 1804. The clash of business interests by the end of the nineteenth century took somewhat political tint with the cargo interests and the shipowners vigorously attacking each other. And although it was mainly related to Chamberlain’s unsuccessful efforts to pass the Bill which would end the practice of ship owners over-insuring their vessels, so called ‘coffin ships’, it also had an effect on some part of legal society, who viewed the owners’ side as being reduced "substantially to the condition of irresponsible bailees". Probably this opinion formed that background which crystallised decision in Balian & Sons v Joly, Victoria & Co Ltd (1890) 6 TLR 345, where ‘Lord Esher was prepared to say that a deviation would be treated in law as fundamentally changing the nature of a voyage so that after a deviation "the whole bill of lading was gone". The short explanation was that he thought that the duty to follow the contractual route was important, that steamship bills of lading were often unfair and that legislative reform was unlikely. To prevent avoidance of the obligation to follow the contractual route, he was quite willing to say that, after a deviation, the benefit of all the pro-carrier provisions of the special contract would be lost.’
But all the above said does not help one to see how that battle over liabilities of the carrier and the merchant in the contract of carriage brought about Lord Denning’s thesis connecting deviation cases to the doctrine of fundamental breach: a secret weapon in the twentieth century fight between the big concern and little man.
Share this article on:
Be first to comment …