3. Whether M/s Royal Yatches & Vessels Inc.

is Negligent
and is liable to pay compensation for the damages caused
to the environment.
It is humbly contended that the ultimate event of the ship getting stuck at Midgard Island was
a result of an Act of god. There is no negligence on part of the defendant. It is further
contended that even after taking reasonable actions when the ship broke down, the Act of
God caused the ship to drift away. As Cleopatra was not functioning all the personnel in the
ship were evacuated when the ship was towed. When Cleopatra was being towed by Vikrant
a heavy storm broke out which caused the tug connecting both ships to break off. Due to this,
Cleopatra drifted away, carrying all the consignments with her. It eventually got struck at the
Midgard Islands. It is also further brought to notice that the event of Cleopatra becoming a spot of
local attraction and attracting tourists was not at all foreseeable. The beach littered by the tourist is
an act of a third party for which the defendant cannot be held liable. In addition, the accusation
made by the environmentalists that Cleopatra caused the tar balls is not sustainable. The company
has made it clear through a statement that Cleopatra had no fuel in it making it impossible for the
ship to cause an oil spillage and pollute the environment.

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

Issue I: Whether M/s Royal Yatches & Vessels Inc. is

Negligent and is liable to pay compensation for the
damages caused to the environment.
It is humbly contended before the Hon’ble Court that the company, M/s Royal Yatches &
Vessels Inc. cannot be held liable for the damages caused to the environment. This will be
further discussed in a -fold manner: [I.1] Act of God, [I.2] Absence of negligence on
the part of the defendant and [I.3] Remoteness of Damage, [I.4]

[I.1] Act of god

1. it is humbly contended before the Hon’ble Court that the company, M/s Royal Yatches &
Vessels Inc. cannot be liable under Negligence, as this case was a result of an Act of God. An
Act of God is a direct, violent and sudden act of nature which by any amount of human
foresight could have been foreseen and if foreseen could not by any amount of human care
and skill have been resisted. Thus, such acts caused by the basic forces of nature come under
this category.For example storms, tempest, extraordinary high tide, extraordinary rainfall etc.

2. This particular defence was talked in the case of Nichols v. Marsland (1876) in which the
defendant had a series of artificial lakes on his land. There had been no negligence on the part
of the defendant in the construction and maintenance of the artificial lakes. Due to
unpredictable heavy rain, some of the reservoirs burst and swept away four country bridges.
It was held by the court that the defendant could not be said to be liable since the water
escaped by the act of God.

3. In the present case, in order to repair Cleopatra as soon as possible, a towing ship under the
name Vikrant was brought. As Vikrant was carrying the ship, a heavy storm broke out which
caused the tug connecting the two ships to break. Due to this, Cleopatra drifted away,
carrying all the consignments with her. It eventually got struck at Midgard Island.

[I.2] Absence of negligence on the part of the defendant.

It is humbly contended before the Hon’ble Court that M/s Royal Yatches & Vessels Inc.
cannot be held liable for the damages caused to the environment.

1. In order to establish a lack of negligence through an inevitable accident, the inability

to foresee the event by someone of ordinary prudence 1 and the inability to prevent it

after taking reasonable precautions to avoid the same are elements. If an incident

occurs even after exercising ordinary care, caution and skill, negligence doesn’t exist.

If in the prosecution of a lawful act, an accident, which purely so arises, no action can

be sustained for any injury arising therefrom2.

2. A heavy storm that too during the onset of monsoon was an unforeseeable event that

caused the ship to get stuck at the Midgard Islands. It is not reasonable to expect

1
(Saner v. Bilton, 1878) (Manchester Bonded Warehouse Co. v. Carr, 1880) (Manindra Nath Mukerjee v.
Mathuradas Chaturbhuj, 1945)
2
(Davis v. Saunders, 1772) (Holmes v. Mather, 1875) (Stanley v. Powell, 1 QB 86: 39 WR 76.)
 someone of ordinary care and prudence to foresee Cleopatra being stuck on Midgard

Island and further also be a spot of local attraction.

3. Furthermore, even after the attempts by the Navy and coast guard to pull Cleopatra

away from the beach where it was stuck in the sands, the ship continues to lie on the

beach. The ship being stuck, even after attempts to pull the ship, for a long time was

part of the reason (the other reason is because of the gathering by the public) why

there was garbage on the beach. Therefore it was a result of an unforeseeable event

that lead to the resulting chain of events.

[I.3] Remoteness of damage

1. A damage or an injury caused by a tortious act of the defendant will not qualify for

award of damage if it is too remote. An event is remote if the consequences could not

have been foreseen by man who is reasonable and prudent 3. The risk of the event or

incident occurring must be real4

2. It is a risk which a prudent man would not push aside as far-fetched. The consequence

of the event which occurred out of risk also needs to be direct. No one or nothing

should break the chain of causation as, according to the test of directness is important

as a part to a case will be held liable only for all the direct consequences of tortious

acts committed by that part which are suffered by the other party. The test of

foreseeability is essential to content remoteness of damage

3. In the Wagon Mound No.1 case5, it was opined that the defendant could not have

reasonably been expected to know what actually happened after his act. However,
3
(Rigby v. Hewitt, 1850)
4
(Greenland v. Chaplin,, 1850)
5
(Overseas Tankship (UK) Ltd V. Morts DOck and Engineering Co. Ltd, 1961)
 since the accident was a direct consequence of negligence, the defendants were held

liable.

4. In contrast to the aforementioned case, M/s Royal Yatches & Vessels Inc. could not

have possibly foreseen or known that the ship would get stuck on Midgard islands.

Being stuck on the island the ship became a spot of local attraction which further

could not have been foreseen. As already established, the defendants were not

negligent in their actions and the consequence of the events was not direct.

4. Whether Mr. X can claim unliquidated damages for the

breach of contract.

1. in the contract between Mr, x and M/s Royal Yatches & Vessels Inc, a standard force

ma Majeure Clause also existed which stated: Neither of the parties shall be held liable

for any failure or delay in performance of contractual obligations arising out of or

caused, directly or indirectly, by circumstances beyond any reasonable control, including

but not limited to acts of God, earthquake, fires, droughts, epidemics, pandemics.

Moreover in this case the plaintiff filed a suit for recovery of damages, seeking

unliquidated damages of Rs. 35,00,000/-. . In the contract between Mr. X and M/s Royal

Yatches & Vessels Inc, there was a provision for liquidated damages up to Rs.

10,00,000/.
 ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

5. Whether Mr. X can claim unliquidated damages for the breach of contract.

This issue would be dealt in two-fold manner [II.1] Force Majeure Clause and [II.2]

Liquidated damages clause

[II.1] Force Majeure Clause

1. As contemplated under Section 56 of the Indian Contract Act , 1872 promises and reciprocal
promises under a contract come to an end when force majeure conditions occur. Force majeure,

or Act of God, occurs when :

1. The cause is not created by the defaulting party s fault;

2. The cause must be inevitable and unforeseeable; and

3. The cause must make execution of the contract wholly impossible.

2. In the present case on hand, the circumstances could be brought under the purview

of Section 56 of the Indian Contract Act , 1872, and the delay in completion of the contracted

project within the scheduled date i.e., 10.06.2022 can be excused

3. in this case there are two elements that made it impossible for the defendant to

complete the contract. One was the heavy storm that caused the ship to get stuck on the

Midgard islands. Second, the unsuccessful efforts made by the navy and coast guard to

pull Cleopatra away from the beach where it was stuck in the sands.

[II.2] Liquidated damages clause

1.Damages that are claimed for losses unforeseeable are called

Unliquidated Damages. These damages are commonly awarded for cases

involving a breach of contract. These damages apply to any breach of

contract that does not contain a liquidated damages clause. In this

particular case, in the contract between Mr. X and M/s Royal Yatches & Vessels Inc,

there was a provision for liquidated damages up to Rs. 10,00,000/.