The Moorcock Case || (1889) 14 PD 64 || Case Summary

The Moorcock Case

(1889) 14 PD 64

Case Summary

[Implied Term]

FACTS- In 1889, the owner of a steamship ( the Moorcock) who is the claimant in this case entered into a contract with the owner of a wharf, who is the defendant in this case, to moor his ship at the defendant's wharf on the river Thames. The river Thames is tidal, and at times, when the tide went out, the ship would come into contact with the river bed. The ship became damaged due to uneven surfaces and rocks on the river bed. The claimant sought to claim damages from the defendant, and the defendant argued that there was no provision in the contract warranting the condition of the river bed.

ISSUES

1. Was there any implied warranty on the defendant's part to ensure the ship's safety?

2. Was there a presumption that the defendants ought to take reasonable care to ascertain that the bottom of the river at the jetty was in such a condition as not to endanger the vessel?

JUDGEMENT- The court’s principle on implied terms is that a term will only be implied into a contract when essential to give the agreement business efficacy—making the contract workable in the practical sense intended by both parties. This implies adding terms both parties, as reasonable businesspersons, would have likely agreed upon to ensure a fair distribution of risks and responsibilities.

Implied terms ensure neither party is unduly exposed to the transaction’s risks or absolved from its responsibilities. The law does not imply terms merely for convenience; rather, it does so to prevent an unexpected failure of consideration—where one party’s expectations from the contract are completely unmet in a way neither party anticipated. Thus, a term is implied only if the contract must function as both parties would reasonably have intended, safeguarding the core purpose of the transaction.

PRINCIPLE- implied terms in a contract are inferred based on the parties' presumed intention to ensure the transaction's efficacy and avoid unintended consequences. This principle rests on the understanding that the law implies certain terms to fulfil what both parties must reasonably have intended, even if those terms were not explicitly stated.

Ishika Tanwar