Tweet
Hi all,
Doing some coursework, I require some advice for a fictional law case. Based on the case below:
- Advise if Neptune is contractually obliged to pay Hercules £400,000 £150,000 or £100,000?Â*
- Briefly justify why Scenario
Hercules Engineering (Hercules) has secured a contract to divert and canalise two rivers in connection with a larger project for the decontamination of land belonging to Augeas Developments (Augeas).
Â*
As part of its temporary works, Hercules obtains pumps from Neptune Services (Neptune). Neptune offered to hire the pumps to Hercules on its standard terms for 20 weeks at £5,000 per week plus £500 collection fee. In addition, under its standard terms Neptune sought to limit its liability for losses caused by defects in the pumps to the anticipated hire fee (£100,000). Hercules responded stating that it would pay £5,000 per week hire charge but expected the delivery and collection fee to be included in the hire fee and would not accept any limitation of liability. Neptune responded agreeing to waive the delivery and collection fee and offering to depart from its standard terms by increasing its liability cap to £150,000. Hercules responded noting the waiver of the delivery and collection fee and advised Neptune it would reflect on its position in relation to the proposed limitation of liability before responding.
Â*
As the pumps were now needed urgently, Hercules sent its own vehicle to collect them from Neptune’s local depot. Hercules’ driver handed Neptune’s depot manager a note stating that he was there to collect pumps being hired by Hercules. Attached to this note was a copy of the most recent exchange of correspondence between Hercules and Neptune. The note also stated that even though Hercules was now collecting the pumps it was still prepared to pay the £5,000 per week hire fee. The pumps were loaded onto the vehicle and taken to site.
Â*
There was no further correspondence between Hercules and Neptune in relation to the hire agreement. Hercules began paying the £5,000 weekly hire fee to Neptune.
Â*
Twelve weeks into the hire period, several of the pumps broke down overnight due to defective components. As a direct result of this loss of pumping capacity the river diversion works were affected by flooding which caused Hercules losses of £400,000. Hercules seeks to recover these losses from Neptune. Neptune admits liability but states it considers it is only obliged to pay Hercules £100,000 (the liability cap under its original hire offer).
Thanks in advance
Doing some coursework, I require some advice for a fictional law case. Based on the case below:
- Advise if Neptune is contractually obliged to pay Hercules £400,000 £150,000 or £100,000?Â*
- Briefly justify why Scenario
Hercules Engineering (Hercules) has secured a contract to divert and canalise two rivers in connection with a larger project for the decontamination of land belonging to Augeas Developments (Augeas).
Â*
As part of its temporary works, Hercules obtains pumps from Neptune Services (Neptune). Neptune offered to hire the pumps to Hercules on its standard terms for 20 weeks at £5,000 per week plus £500 collection fee. In addition, under its standard terms Neptune sought to limit its liability for losses caused by defects in the pumps to the anticipated hire fee (£100,000). Hercules responded stating that it would pay £5,000 per week hire charge but expected the delivery and collection fee to be included in the hire fee and would not accept any limitation of liability. Neptune responded agreeing to waive the delivery and collection fee and offering to depart from its standard terms by increasing its liability cap to £150,000. Hercules responded noting the waiver of the delivery and collection fee and advised Neptune it would reflect on its position in relation to the proposed limitation of liability before responding.
Â*
As the pumps were now needed urgently, Hercules sent its own vehicle to collect them from Neptune’s local depot. Hercules’ driver handed Neptune’s depot manager a note stating that he was there to collect pumps being hired by Hercules. Attached to this note was a copy of the most recent exchange of correspondence between Hercules and Neptune. The note also stated that even though Hercules was now collecting the pumps it was still prepared to pay the £5,000 per week hire fee. The pumps were loaded onto the vehicle and taken to site.
Â*
There was no further correspondence between Hercules and Neptune in relation to the hire agreement. Hercules began paying the £5,000 weekly hire fee to Neptune.
Â*
Twelve weeks into the hire period, several of the pumps broke down overnight due to defective components. As a direct result of this loss of pumping capacity the river diversion works were affected by flooding which caused Hercules losses of £400,000. Hercules seeks to recover these losses from Neptune. Neptune admits liability but states it considers it is only obliged to pay Hercules £100,000 (the liability cap under its original hire offer).
Thanks in advance
Comment