Tzortzis and Sykias v. Monark Line A/B
England and Wales Court of Appeal
1 W.L.R. 406, 1 Lloyd’s L. Rep. 337 (1968)
- Written by Curtis Parvin, JD
Facts
On November 7, 1963, Monark Line A/B of Stockholm, Sweden (Monark) (defendant), entered into a contract to sell the steamship Montrose to Mr. Tzortzis and Mr. Sykias (plaintiffs) of Greece. The contract was a standard Scandinavian form approved by the Norwegian Shipowners’ Association and adopted by the Baltic and International Maritime Conference. The contract provided that any issues arising under the contract were subject to arbitration in London, England. Tzortzis and Sykias made payment through Stockholm, Sweden. Under the terms of the contract, Monark delivered the Montrose to a port on the west coast of Sweden. A dispute arose, leading to the appointment of an arbitration panel seated in London. One of the issues was whether English or Swedish law applied, with the latter affording broader rights of recovery. Tzortzis and Sykias contended that Swedish law applied because the critical aspects of the contract were to be performed there and that a London arbitration panel was sufficiently equipped to apply Swedish law. Monark argued that the contract’s arbitration clause, with its London venue, implied that English law applied. The panel determined that English law applied, and the decision was upheld by a commercial judge. Tzortzis and Sykias appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Denning, M.R.)
What to do next…
Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,500 briefs, keyed to 994 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.
