Sellers of a ship under the Norwegian Saleform 2012 negligently failed to be ready for delivery, and the buyers cancelled. The Supreme Court held that clause 14 entitles buyers to loss of bargain damages even without a repudiatory breach.
Background
The appeal concerned the interpretation of clause 14 of the 2012 Norwegian Saleform (NSF), described by the Supreme Court as the most commonly used standard form for the sale and purchase of second-hand ships. It also raised fundamental questions about the relationship between termination for repudiatory breach and termination under an express termination clause.
By a Memorandum of Agreement dated 4 June 2021 on amended NSF 2012 terms, Orion Shipping and Trading LLC (the Sellers) agreed to sell the M/V LILA LISBON to Great Asia Maritime Limited (the Buyers) for US$15 million. The Cancelling Date was 20 August 2021. On 12 August 2021 the Sellers notified the Buyers that the Vessel would not be ready in time. The Buyers agreed a new Cancelling Date of 15 October 2021, without prejudice to their rights. The Vessel was again not ready. On 18 October 2021 the Buyers applied to arrest the Vessel in Zhanjiang, and the arbitrators treated this as a purported cancellation.
Law Teacher writing support
Writing a law essay?
We choose a writer who is an expert in your area of law and qualified to at least the academic level you select. Most of our writers hold a master’s degree or PhD, have teaching experience, or both.
Send us your question and, if you wish, any marking criteria. We’ll write an essay to your instructions.
Clause 14, headed “Sellers’ default”, contained two paragraphs, referred to as clause 14A and clause 14B:
- Clause 14A gave the Buyers an option to cancel if the Sellers failed to give Notice of Readiness, or failed to be ready to validly complete a legal transfer, by the Cancelling Date.
- Clause 14B provided that the Sellers:
“shall make due compensation to the Buyers for their loss and for all expenses together with interest if their failure is due to proven negligence and whether or not the Buyers cancel this Agreement.”
The arbitral award and the courts below
The arbitrators found that the Sellers had been negligent in relation to both Cancelling Dates. For the first failure, they awarded US$1,650,992 for lost profit. For the second failure, they awarded US$1.85 million, being the difference between the market price at 18–22 October 2021 (US$16.85 million) and the contract price.
Bright J granted permission to appeal under section 69 of the Arbitration Act 1996 on the following question: whether a buyer who lawfully cancels under clause 14 because of the seller’s “proven negligence” is entitled to loss of bargain damages absent an accepted repudiatory breach.
Dias J answered that question in the negative. She also held that the Memorandum imposed no obligation on the Sellers to be ready by the Cancelling Date. In her view, clause 14B covered only accrued losses which had crystallised at the point of cancellation. Those included expenses and any lost profit between the date delivery should have occurred and cancellation, but not loss of bargain.
The Court of Appeal (Nugee LJ, with whom Phillips and Birss LJJ agreed) allowed the Buyers’ appeal on both grounds and restored the award. It was by then accepted that:
- the Sellers owed an obligation of reasonable diligence to be ready by the Cancelling Date (the readiness obligation); and
- its breach involved “proven negligence”.
It was also common ground that the readiness obligation was an innominate term and that its breach was not repudiatory.
The issue
The issue was whether “loss” in clause 14B includes loss of bargain damages consequent on cancellation, where there has been no repudiatory breach.
The Sellers’ primary contention was that, as a matter of law, loss of bargain damages are recoverable following termination only if there has been a repudiatory breach. They argued that, construed against that background, “loss” either did not extend to loss of bargain or was insufficiently clear to do so.
Terminology
Lord Hamblen and Lord Burrows (with whom Lord Briggs, Lord Stephens and Lord Doherty agreed) first clarified two terms.
Loss of bargain. In a wide sense, all expectation damages may be described as loss of bargain damages. The court was using the term in a narrower sense, namely loss of bargain consequent on termination. It warned:
“Statements such as ‘one can only recover loss of bargain damages for a repudiatory breach’ have to be understood in that light otherwise they are likely to mislead.”
Repudiatory breach. The court used this term to cover three situations:
- breach of a condition;
- a sufficiently serious breach of an innominate term, in the sense explained in Hongkong Fir; and
- renunciation.
The Court’s reasoning
Interpretive approach
The court applied the objective, contextual approach stated in Providence Building Services v Hexagon Housing Association [2026] UKSC 1. For standard forms, it accepted that the admissible background may include past judicial decisions and practice on earlier versions of the form. It cited Lord Hoffmann in Beaufort Developments, who said that the draftsman’s efforts:
“cannot be properly understood without reference to the meaning which the judges have given to the language used by his predecessors.”
The language of clause 14
The court made the following points about the wording of clause 14:
- “Due compensation” means appropriate compensation applying the common law principles of causation, remoteness and mitigation.
- “Loss” is general and unqualified, and loss of bargain is a type of loss.
- Recovery is available “whether or not the Buyers cancel”. One would therefore expect the recoverable loss to differ between the two situations, and both words “loss” and “expenses” should be given content in each.
- On cancellation, “loss” is wide enough to cover loss in fact suffered as a result of the cancellation. There was:
“no good reason or justification for reading in some further limitation to the loss recoverable.”
- Loss of bargain is the most obvious loss on cancellation.
- Unless “loss” covers loss of bargain, it is unclear what it would cover on cancellation. Counsel for the Sellers offered only delay loss. That gave “loss” no differing content on cancellation, and he acknowledged that in many cases no such delay loss would arise.
The court therefore concluded that the natural and ordinary meaning of “loss” includes loss of bargain consequent on cancellation.
Wider context
Three contextual matters supported that conclusion.
- Clause 13. Clause 13 (Buyers’ default) uses materially identical wording (“for their losses and for all expenses”). Following The Griffon, it permits sellers to recover loss of bargain. Both consistency of wording and contractual symmetry pointed the same way. The court endorsed Nugee LJ’s observation that the NSF is:
“not intended to be a one-sided form of contract favouring one party over the other, but to operate even-handedly as between Sellers and Buyers; it would not have commended itself to the industry otherwise.”
- Non-delivery. Cancellation under clause 14 is, or is akin to, non-delivery. For non-delivery, section 51(3) of the Sale of Goods Act 1979 makes the contract–market difference the prima facie measure of damages.
- Established meaning. Past decisions and settled practice on clause 14 strongly supported recovery of loss of bargain, as explained in the next section.
Established meaning of the standard form
The Solholt. In this 1981 decision on the NSF 1966, Staughton J held that loss of bargain damages were recoverable following cancellation. He rejected arguments that compensation required a repudiatory breach or was confined to delay loss, stating:
“The clause itself contemplates that the buyers may cancel and therefore that the contract will be wholly unperformed, so far as its main object is concerned, that is to say; transfer of the property in the vessel. It is that loss which is, in my judgment, plainly provided for in the words, ‘loss caused to the Buyers by nonfulfilment of this contract’.”
The Al Tawfiq. Here the arbitrators reasoned, and Lloyd J essentially endorsed, that under clause 14 cancelling buyers could obtain loss of bargain damages “as a matter of contractual entitlement”.
Later revisions and commentary. Subsequent revisions of the form had not removed this entitlement. If anything, the 1993 wording extended recovery. Leading textbooks (Strong & Herring; Goldrein) and commentary reflected the same industry understanding.
The principle applied. Relying on The Nema and Hobhouse J in The World Symphony, the court emphasised certainty in standard forms:
“Parties must be able to contract on the basis of established decisions about the words they are choosing to use to express their contractual intention.”
The court explained that this fits within the objective approach. Parties using a standard form are taken to contract on its established meaning unless that meaning is clearly wrong. The onus was therefore on the Sellers to show a good reason to depart from it.
Commercial consequences
Adopting the iterative approach in Wood v Capita, the court considered the commercial consequences of each interpretation:
- On the Sellers’ case, negligent sellers would keep a vessel that had risen in value to US$16.85 million. The innocent Buyers would be US$1.85 million out of pocket in buying a replacement, which the court described as:
“the reverse of what would be expected commercially.”
- The Sellers’ interpretation would also create perverse incentives. Sellers might delay in a rising market hoping buyers would cancel. Buyers might hold off cancelling in the hope of a repudiatory breach, at the risk of losing the right to cancel through waiver.
The court reached a “strong prima facie conclusion” in favour of recovery.
Rejection of the ‘causation principle’
The Sellers relied on Financings Ltd v Baldock [1963] 2 QB 104. They argued that, absent repudiatory breach, the effective cause of loss of bargain is the innocent party’s election to terminate, and that “due compensation” imports this causal rule.
The Buyers did not challenge Financings. The court therefore assumed it was good law, while expressly leaving open its reconsideration in a more suitable case. It noted academic criticism and the Supreme Court of Canada’s refusal to follow it in Keneric Tractor Sales.
The court nonetheless doubted the causation rationale for three reasons:
- A repudiatory breach does not itself destroy the bargain unless it is accepted. As Asquith LJ said in Howard v Pickford Tool:
“An unaccepted repudiation is a thing writ in water and of no value to anybody: it confers no legal rights of any sort or kind.”
- If election to terminate were the effective cause, the same logic would bar loss of bargain damages after termination for repudiatory breach.
- Ordinary principles indicated that the breach was an effective cause in this case. The arbitrators had so found, and the Buyers’ termination was not a novus actus interveniens.
Decisively, even assuming a “Financings causation principle” exists, it explains only bare termination clauses. It has no role in interpreting an express compensation clause:
“it would defeat the purpose of that express compensation clause if one were to interpret it in line with the Financings causation principle. In other words, the role of the Financings causation principle will have been exhausted in so far as one is interpreting an express compensation clause rather than a bare express termination clause.”
The argument was also internally inconsistent. Applied logically, it would bar recovery of wasted expenses too, yet the Sellers conceded that expenses were recoverable under clause 14B.
Rejection of the ‘clear words principle’
The Sellers invoked a “Novasen presumption”: that clear words are required to confer a right to damages that would not arise at law.
The court accepted the established rule that clear words are needed to take away valuable rights or remedies, citing Gilbert-Ash, Photo Production, Triple Point and MUR Shipping. The rationale is that it is inherently unlikely that parties would give up valuable rights without saying so.
It refused, however, to extend that rule to the conferral of rights:
“Taking away rights or remedies is significantly different from conferring additional rights or remedies. It is not inherently unlikely that a party may intend to confer on the other party additional rights to those available at common law; nor would such a clause indicate potential unfairness.”
The court added that, taken to its logical conclusion, the submission would subject almost every contractual clause to a clear words requirement.
The authorities relied on by the Sellers were distinguished:
- Novasen and Bunge v Nidera. These were properly understood as requiring clear words only where a damages clause would override the compensatory principle by awarding damages where no loss has been suffered. Here, a real loss of bargain had been suffered, so nothing about clause 14B was “arbitrary”.
- Popplewell J’s remarks in The Spar Capella. These were unnecessary to his decision and concerned a bare option to cancel.
- The analogy with conditions. The suggested analogy with the presumption that terms are innominate was rejected, because there is no equivalent starting presumption against conferring additional rights.
Practical significance
- The NSF. The decision confirms the long-standing industry understanding of the NSF. A buyer who cancels under clause 14 because of the seller’s proven negligence may recover the contract–market difference, even though the seller’s breach was not repudiatory.
- Drafting. It distinguishes bare express termination clauses, to which Financings may apply, from termination clauses coupled with express compensation provisions. The latter will be construed according to their terms, without importing the Financings limitation. Parties wishing to exclude loss of bargain damages must say so expressly.
- Interpretation of standard forms. The court reaffirmed that established meanings of standard forms should not be disturbed unless clearly wrong. It confined the “clear words” canon to the removal of rights, and to clauses that would override the compensatory principle.
- Financings. The court expressed doubts about the causation explanation for Financings and expressly left its reconsideration open for a suitable future case.
Verdict: The appeal was dismissed. The Supreme Court upheld the Court of Appeal’s interpretation of clause 14 of NSF 2012, which had restored the arbitrators’ award. The court held that, where a Memorandum of Agreement on the Saleform 2012 is lawfully cancelled by a buyer under clause 14 because the vessel is not delivered by the Cancelling Date as a result of the seller’s proven negligence, the buyer is entitled to recover loss of bargain damages even though there has been no accepted repudiatory breach. The Buyers were therefore entitled to the US$1.85 million awarded by the arbitrators.
Source: Great Asia Maritime Limited v Orion Shipping and Trading LLC [2026] UKSC 23
