Legal Duel Over Contract Interpretation
The heart of the case lies in contractual interpretation. Lewis argued that Orion had a clear duty to ensure delivery by the agreed cancellation date, not merely to issue a notice of readiness. He insisted that no “clear words” clause is required to trigger loss of bargain damages when the breach stems from proven negligence.
“That presumption is incorrect,” Lewis argued. “The contract obligated Orion to perform, not just to attempt.”
On the other side, Alexander Wright KC of 4 Pump Court, representing Orion, called Great Asia Maritime’s interpretation “draconian” and a departure from long-standing legal principles.
“This is not a non-delivery case,” Wright asserted. “It’s a case of delayed delivery overtaken by the buyer’s own decision to terminate under the contract.”
Wright said damages of the kind being claimed require explicit language, which was absent from the contract. He cited the traditional legal difference between termination due to breach and repudiatory breach, the latter being more likely to justify such compensation under common law.
