Office: +44 203 968 0500
24/7 Emergency Response: +44 7887 710 950
Select Page

The Meaning of “Laycan”

The Meaning Of Lycan | BDM Blog | BDM Law

Those involved in the commodities and shipping business will be interested to learn that in a recent case1 the Commercial Court confirmed that in free on board (“FOB”) contracts for the sale of goods the term “laycan” means “that the seller can cancel the contract if the vessel, which it is the buyer’s duty to procure, does not arrive at the port by the cancellation date.” In doing so, the Court affirmed the classic definition of the term “laycan” as found in The Luxmar [2007] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 542.

The underlying dispute concerned a contract for the sale of fuel oil. The parties agreed a “recap” of the main terms of agreement which provided a “laycan” of 23 to 24 December 2019. The buyer failed to provide a vessel to load the cargo within the agreed laycan period.

There were additional factual disputes between the parties including in relation to the validity of a letter of credit and whether the laycan period in the recap had been amended by subsequent discussions between the parties about when the cargo would be provided for shipment.

Ultimately, the seller accepted the buyer’s conduct as repudiatory and the sale contract was terminated with the seller bringing a claim for damages.

Amongst other arguments, the buyer sought to get around the Luxmar by arguing that in the context of an FOB sale contract (as opposed to a charterparty), the term “laycan” referred to the shipment or loading period and not the period by which it had to provide a vessel. That argument was resoundingly rejected by the Court. The Court found in favour of the seller and awarded it damages under the provisions of section 50(3) of the Sale of Goods Act 1979 i.e. the difference between the contract price and the market price when the goods ought to have been accepted for shipment.

This judgment is a reminder to buyers that under FOB contracts they must provide a vessel ready to load at the load port by the cancellation date to avoid the consequences of cancellation.

  1. Vitol S.A. v JE Energy Ltd. [2022] EWHC 2494 (Comm)
Gareth Thompson - author profile
Gareth Thompson
Managing Associate
BDM is a specialist shipping law firm offering high quality legal advice and representation at a reasonable price. Please follow us on social media by clicking below.

Other Recent Blogs

  • Tendering NOR does wirelessinclude email | BDM Blog | BDM Law
    November 21, 2022

    Tendering NOR – does “wireless” include email?

    In a recent arbitration under the LMAA Small Claims Procedure (1) the Tribunal had to determine the validity of a Notice of Readiness (“NOR”) which had been tendered by email. The NOR is one of the most important documents for ship owners because it acts as a trigger to [...]

    Read more >
  • Delivery without original bills – an example of what can go wrong | BDM Blog | BDM Law
    November 7, 2022

    Delivery without original bills – an example of what can go wrong

    Readers of our blog may recall an article we released back in November 2020 in which we highlighted the risks that a ship owner is required to undertake when accepting a letter of indemnity (LOI) in exchange for releasing the cargo without the production of an original bill [...]

    Read more >
  • Supreme Court gives permission to appeal in The Polar | BDM Blog | BDM Law
    October 31, 2022

    Supreme Court gives permission to appeal in “The Polar”

    We previously reported on the High Court and Court of Appeal’s decisions in one of the last Somali ransom cases still in the Court system. The Court of Appeal held that a war risks provision in a charterparty did not constitute an agreement that the owners would not claim [...]

    Read more >
+44 203 968 0500
+44 7887 710 950