Commercial Metals Company v. International Union Marine Corporation

S.D. New York

Commercial Metals Company v. International Union Marine Corporation

318 F. Supp. 1334, 1970 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9639

CourtDistrict Court, S.D. New York

DecidedNovember 4, 1970

Docket67 Civ. 4702

StatusPublished

Cited by7 cases

This text of 318 F. Supp. 1334 (Commercial Metals Company v. International Union Marine Corporation) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, S.D. New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Commercial Metals Company v. International Union Marine Corporation, 318 F. Supp. 1334, 1970 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9639 (S.D.N.Y. 1970).

Pincite

Opinion

MANSFIELD, District Judge.

In this claim by a charterer against a shipowner for breach of a charter party contract, which is presently the subject of an arbitration proceeding, see 294 F.Supp. 570 (S.D.N.Y.1968), defendant has moved pursuant to 9 U.S.C. § 7 and Rule 45(b), F.R.Civ.P., to vacate and quash a subpoena duces tecum issued by the arbitrators directing it to produce certain records showing profits earned by it from its alleged wrongful use of the ship during the period when it was under charter to plaintiff. For the reasons stated below the motion is denied.

In the first place we would not be likely to interfere with the arbitrators’ exercise of their broad powers with respect to damages, at least as long as the evidence sought could conceivably be relevant to their inquiry. See Orion Shipping & Trading Co. v. Eastern States Petroleum Corp. of Panama, 284 F.2d 419, 421 (2d Cir. 1960); Transpacific Transport Co. v. Sirena Ship. Co., 9 App. Div.2d 316, 193 N.Y.S.2d 277 (1st Dept. 1959).

Although the usual measure of damages for breach of a charter party contract appears to be the difference between the amount of the charter hire and the cost of replacement, The Ada, 239 F. 363 (S.D.N.Y.), revd. on other grounds, 250 F. 194 (2d Cir. 1918), defendant concedes that plaintiff, if unable to obtain a replacement, would have been entitled to its lost profits. The Ada, swpra at 364. Furthermore, there is some indication that maritime law might permit $ie charterer, at least where the breach 'of contract was deliberate, to recover the profits derived by the wrongdoing owner from its use of the ship to which the charterer was entitled. The Port Adelaide, 59 F. 174 ÍS.D.N.Y.1893), affd., 62 F. 486 (2d Cir. 1894). See also American Law Institute, Restatement of the Law of Contracts, Vol. I, §§ 331, 332 (1930 ed.).

Since it appears that the records which are the subject of the subpoena might be relevant to the arbitrators’ inquiry in this case, defendant’s motion is denied.

It is so ordered.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

MANSFIELD, District Judge.

In this claim by a charterer against a shipowner for breach of a charter party contract, which is presently the subject of an arbitration proceeding, see 294 F.Supp. 570 (S.D.N.Y.1968), defendant has moved pursuant to 9 U.S.C. § 7 and Rule 45(b), F.R.Civ.P., to vacate and quash a subpoena duces tecum issued by the arbitrators directing it to produce certain records showing profits earned by it from its alleged wrongful use of the ship during the period when it was under charter to plaintiff. For the reasons stated below the motion is denied.

In the first place we would not be likely to interfere with the arbitrators’ exercise of their broad powers with respect to damages, at least as long as the evidence sought could conceivably be relevant to their inquiry. See Orion Shipping & Trading Co. v. Eastern States Petroleum Corp. of Panama, 284 F.2d 419, 421 (2d Cir. 1960); Transpacific Transport Co. v. Sirena Ship. Co., 9 App. Div.2d 316, 193 N.Y.S.2d 277 (1st Dept. 1959).

Although the usual measure of damages for breach of a charter party contract appears to be the difference between the amount of the charter hire and the cost of replacement, The Ada, 239 F. 363 (S.D.N.Y.), revd. on other grounds, 250 F. 194 (2d Cir. 1918), defendant concedes that plaintiff, if unable to obtain a replacement, would have been entitled to its lost profits. The Ada, swpra at 364. Furthermore, there is some indication that maritime law might permit $ie charterer, at least where the breach 'of contract was deliberate, to recover the profits derived by the wrongdoing owner from its use of the ship to which the charterer was entitled. The Port Adelaide, 59 F. 174 ÍS.D.N.Y.1893), affd., 62 F. 486 (2d Cir. 1894). See also American Law Institute, Restatement of the Law of Contracts, Vol. I, §§ 331, 332 (1930 ed.).

Since it appears that the records which are the subject of the subpoena might be relevant to the arbitrators’ inquiry in this case, defendant’s motion is denied.

It is so ordered.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

318 F. Supp. 1334, 1970 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9639, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/commercial-metals-company-v-international-union-marine-corporation-nysd-1970.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack