The Post Chaser [1982] 1 All ER 19
Shipping law – Contract – Declaration of shipment
Facts
The sellers agreed to sell a quantity of palm-oil to the buyers who had contracted to sell this onto sub-buyers. A clause in the contract required the sellers to send a declaration of shipment to the buyers in writing as soon as possible after the ship set sail. The sellers gave the declaration a month after the ship had set sail and the buyers did not protest the time delay. The sellers also handed the documents directly to the sub-buyer at the request of the first buyer. It was then the sub-buyers that rejected the documents. The buyers followed this and the sellers sold the oil, less money, elsewhere. The sellers then brought an action claiming the difference in the money that was lost as damages.
Issue
The issue, in this case, was whether the buyer could reject the shipment sent by the seller. Specifically, the court had to look whether the buyer had waived their rights to claim against the delay in the sending the declaration of shipping or whether it would be inequitable to the seller to allow them to do so.
Decision/Outcome
The seller’s claim for damages was rejected. The court found that the declaration of the shipment was an essential step in this sale process, particularly with a view to the timings requested by the buyer. However, the court found that they had waived their rights to claim against error/delay by requesting that the documents are submitted directly to the sub-buyers. On this basis, the buyers were not found to be inequitable in their actions in rejecting the documents.
Updated 20 March 2026
This case summary accurately reflects the decision in The Post Chaser [1982] 1 All ER 19 (Robert Goff J). The case remains good law and continues to be cited in discussions of waiver by conduct and promissory estoppel in contract law, particularly in the context of commodity sale contracts under English law. The core principles — that a party may waive a contractual right by conduct, but that waiver by estoppel additionally requires detrimental reliance before it becomes inequitable to resile — have not been displaced by subsequent legislation or case law. Students should note, however, that the summary slightly conflates the reasoning: the court found that while the buyers had waived their right to reject for late presentation of the declaration, no sufficient detriment to the sellers was established to prevent the buyers from later rejecting the documents on other grounds, meaning the sellers’ damages claim failed. This distinction between waiver and promissory estoppel is important for exam purposes. The article is otherwise broadly accurate.
