Court Opinion

ID: 8854904
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2022-11-26 17:26:19.868533+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:05:37.487055
License: Public Domain

WALLACE, Circuit Judge
(dissenting). I am of the opinion that tin; libelants ought not to recover, as damages for the breach of warranty of the vessel’s speed, the consequential loss arising by decay and depreciation of the cargo upon the two voyages in question, known as the eighth and ninth voyages. The theory of the libelants is that if, upon these two voyages, the vessel had maintained the contract speed from New York to Colon and hack, she would have been able to deliver her cargo of bananas at New York two days earlier than the time when she was actually ready to make delivery, and that, during the two-days delay, the cargo decayed, and became greatly deteriorated in value. By reason of the delay, it has been found that there was a depreciation in the value of the cargo upon the first voyage of $5,624, and upon the second voyage of $5,178. According to the proofs of the libelants, if the vessel had maintained her contract speed throughout her first voy*942age, she would have arrived at Colon on Friday, April 8th, at 3 o’clock p. m.; would have been able immediately to receive cargo; could have sailed the next Saturday night; and could have reached New York, and commenced to discharge, on. the morning of April 18th, at which time the fruit was in sound 'condition; but that, by reason of her insufficient speed, she did not reach Colon until 8 o’clock Saturday evening, April 8th. The next day, Sunday, the negro laborers refused to work. Consequently, she could not load and sail until Monday, April 11th, at noon, and did not reach New York, ready to discharge cargo, until the morning of the 20th, at which time the fruit had decayed. 'Upon the second voyage, if the vessel had maintained her contract speed, she could have reached Colon, Thursday, May 5, 1891, at 1:15 p. m.; could have loaded and sailed by 9:30 p. m., Friday; could have reached New York, May 14th, at 9:30 a. m., at which time her cargo was in sound condition; and could have been discharged that day. Whereas, she did not reach Colon until 8:30 p. m. of May 5th; arriving at that hour, could not commence loading until Friday morning; could not complete loading and sail until 8 p. m., Saturday; and did not reach New York until May 16th, at noon, at which time the cargo had decayed.
The charter was for four months, with the option to the charterers to renew upon the same terms for a year longer, and contained a condition that they might cancel the contract at any time upon 30 days’ notice. Its provisions indicated that the vessel might be employed in carrying fruit cargo, but the charterers were at liberty to employ her in any other kind of transportation, at their pleasure, between ports in Canada or the United States and the West Indies or Central or South America; and they were at liberty to sublet the vessel or assign the charter. The speed warranty was as follows:
“The owners guaranty the steamer to make an average speed, under steam,, of not less than 11 knots per hour, fruit or light laden, in moderate weather, and with good American coal.”
.. Before the charterers exercised their option to renew the charter, the vessel had been unable to make the contract speed. Her owners had insisted that the speed guaranty was inserted in the charter by their brokers without authority from them. Nevertheless, before and after the renewal, they had promised, from time to time, to endeavor to have the speed increased to conform with the warranty. After December, 1891, however, at which time some repairs were made to the vessel, nothing was done or attempted by the owners to increase her speed, and they insisted that they had done all they could, and that the charterers had waived performance. Long before the voyages in question, the charterers understood that the vessel was unable, and was likely to continue unable, to make a higher speed than she actually made upon the two voyages in question. February 5, 1891, they wrote to the owners as follows:
“We note that you consider that we have waived certain clauses of the Ceres charter, and that we shall not run her after March 1st. We do not *943know where you got this information, hut it is entirely incorrect. We have waived no clauses of the charter, and until you receive proper notice that we shall stop running- her, it is not your province to assume that we shall give her up at any time. * * * It is our present intention to continue running this boat, hut we must again call your attention that yon have guarantied her to make a certain speed, and that we insist that such guaranty shall he carried out. We have, from good feelings towards Gapt. Svensson, made no claim for damages, owing to nonfulfillment of tliis clause, as yet; hut it will not he entirely safe to judge, from tills, that we will do the same in the future. We have written to you several times on this subject, and do not propose to do so again.”
There is no pretense that., from the time that letter was sent, the libelants were under any expectation that the owners would endeavor to increase the speed of the vessel.
The libelants have been awarded damages for a loss which was not such a probable and necessary consequence of a breach of the warranty as may fairly be supposed to have entered into the contemplation of the parties when the contract was made. Such a recovery is not sanctioned by authority. Griffin v. Colver, 16 N. Y. 489. Baldwin v. Telegraph Co., 45 N. Y. 744; Murdock v. Railroad Co., 133 Mass. 15; Pennypacker v. Jones, 106 Pa. St. 237; Howard v. Manufacturing Co., 139 U. S. 199, 11 Sup. Ct. 500.
If the present warranty had been contained in a charter for a single voyage between specified ports for the transportation of a fruit cargo, a loss caused by a decay of the fruit upon the voyage in consequence of the inability of the vessel to perform her contract might properly be considered to fall within the established rule of damages. But the warranty was contained in a charter which was practically for 16 months, and which authorized the charterers to engage in carrying any kind of cargo, and make a great variety of voyages. The contract was, not that she should make the specified speed under all circumstances, but only that she should do so in moderate weather. The many voyages that might be made during the charter period were subject to contingencies which it was impossible to forecast. The conjectural character of the loss which was likely to occur in case of a breach of the warranty is illustrated by the one which actually took place. Because of 5 hours’ delay upon the first voyage in arriving at Colon, the vessel 1ms been made responsible for the consequences of the delay (here of 36 hours, and the refusal of the laborers to work. If she had started a day earlier, Sunday would not have intervened. A delay of 30 hours might not have resulted in the decay of the fruit. If the weather upon the voyage had been colder, possibly the delay would not have materially injured the cargo. If it had been hotter, possibly the loss would have been very much larger. And, if the vessel had encountered heavy storms,' notwithstanding she had made her contract speed, her cargo might have been ruined by the delay. Whether a cargo of fruit would he injured upon any voyage by reason of the inability of the vessel to make her contract speed would depend upon the condition of the fruit when shipped, the length of the voyage, the weather conditions, and other circumstances which could not be anticipated. When*944ever special or extraordinary damages, sucii as would not naturally or ordinarily follow a breach, have been awarded for the nonperformance of contracts, it bas been for the reason that the contracts bare been made witb reference to peculiar circumstances known to both parties, and the particular loss has been in the contemplation of both, at the time of making the contract, as a contingency that might follow the nonperformance.
Aside from the • objection that the damages which have been awarded are too remote and too speculative, there are graver objections to the recovery. The libelants, having been aware that there was no probability that the vessel would be able to maintain the contract speed, had no right to undertake to transport fruit cargoes upon long voyages, during which a few hours’ delay might entail an enormous loss by decay, with-the expectation of shifting such loss upon the vessel owners. It was their right to refuse to keep the ship, and rely upon a legitimate claim for damages. Such damages would have consisted in a recovery of the cost of procuring a substituted vessel for the rest of the charter term, and for the difference in value, during the prior period of the charter, between a vessel such as the contract called for and such as they had received. The party injured by the breach of a contract can charge the delinquent with such damages only as, with reasonable endeavors and expense, he could not prevent. .It is his duty to use reasonable diligence to reduce the damages arising from the breach as far as practicable. Wicker v. Hoppock, 6 Wall. 94; Warren v. Stoddart, 105 U. S. 224; Bagley v. Rolling Mill Co., 22 Blatchf. 342, 351, 21 Fed. 159; The Oregon, 6 U. S. App. 581, 5 C. C. A. 229, and 55 Fed. 666. Reason and good conscience will not permit him to claim damages which arise in consequence of his own ■inactivity; still less, with such as arise from his own reckless and improvident conduct. Not content with the experiences of the first of the two voyages in question, the libelants undertook the second with the full'knowledge of all the chances which might arise; and, by the judgment of the majority of the court, this experiment has been sanctioned, and the heavy loss which has resulted from it has been shifted from those who undertook the hazards, with the full knowledge of the risks, upon the vessel owners.
I am also of the opinion that, in the absence of any provision in the charter to that effect, the hire was not to cease during the two-weeks lay-up of the vessel; but, as the court has reached the conclusion, upon other grounds, that the appellant is entitled to recover the hire during that period, I do not care to enter upon a discussion "of the question.