TREITEL ON THE LAW OF CONTRACT.

15th Edition Edwin. Peel

Visit to download the full and correct content document:
https://ebookmeta.com/product/treitel-on-the-law-of-contract-15th-edition-edwin-peel/
More products digital (pdf, epub, mobi) instant
download maybe you interests ...

Text, Cases and Materials on Contract Law 5th Edition

Richard Stone

https://ebookmeta.com/product/text-cases-and-materials-on-
contract-law-5th-edition-richard-stone/

Gilbert Law Summaries on Contracts 15th Edition Melvin

A. Eisenberg

https://ebookmeta.com/product/gilbert-law-summaries-on-
contracts-15th-edition-melvin-a-eisenberg/

The Role of International Environmental Law in Disaster

Risk Reduction 1st Edition Jacqueline Peel

https://ebookmeta.com/product/the-role-of-international-
environmental-law-in-disaster-risk-reduction-1st-edition-
jacqueline-peel/

An Introduction to the Law of Contract 10th Edition

Stephen Graw

https://ebookmeta.com/product/an-introduction-to-the-law-of-
contract-10th-edition-stephen-graw/
The Code Napoléon Rewritten French Contract Law after
the 2016 Reforms 1st Edition John Cartwright

https://ebookmeta.com/product/the-code-napoleon-rewritten-french-
contract-law-after-the-2016-reforms-1st-edition-john-cartwright/

Principles of contract law Sixth Edition. Edition

Jeannie Marie Paterson

https://ebookmeta.com/product/principles-of-contract-law-sixth-
edition-edition-jeannie-marie-paterson/

law of contract 2 part 7th Edition Dr R K Bangia

https://ebookmeta.com/product/law-of-contract-2-part-7th-edition-
dr-r-k-bangia/

Understanding Contract Law, 2nd Edition Richard Austen-

Baker

https://ebookmeta.com/product/understanding-contract-law-2nd-
edition-richard-austen-baker/

Contract Law in Poland 4th Edition Piotr Machnikowski

https://ebookmeta.com/product/contract-law-in-poland-4th-edition-
piotr-machnikowski/
SWEET&MAXWELL’

TREITEL
' I !| I 11 x1 ! |G? '!
FIFTEENTH EDITION
Hfc.............
EDWIN PEEL

■■ ■. ■■oAis?
■ .00? THOMSON REUTERS
THE LAW OF CONTRACT

Fifteenth Edition
 THE LAW OF CONTRACT
Fifteenth Edition

EDWIN PEEL, BCL, MA

Professor of Law
Clarendon Harris Fellow in Law, Keble College, Oxford
Barrister, One Essex Court

SWEET & MAXWELL THOMSON REUTERS

 First Edition 1962
Second Edition 1966
Third Edition 1970
Fourth Edition 1975
Fifth Edition 1979
Sixth Edition 1983
Seventh Edition 1987
Eighth Edition 1991
Ninth Edition 1995
Tenth Edition 1999
Eleventh Edition 2003
Twelfth Edition 2007
Reprinted 2010
Thirteenth Edition 2011
Fourteenth Edition 2015
Fifteenth Edition 2020

Published in 2020 by Thomson Reuters, trading as Sweet & Maxwell. Thomson Reuters is
registered in England & Wales, Company No.1679046. Registered Office and address for
service: 5 Canada Square, Canary Wharf, London, E14 5AQ.

For further information on our products and services, visit ivzviv.siveetandmaxivell.co.uk

Typeset by Letterpart Limited, Caterham on the Hill, Surrey, CR3 5XL.

Printed and bound in Great Britain by CPI Group (UK) Ltd, Croydon, CRO 4YY.

No natural forests were destroyed to make this product: only farmed timber was used and
re-planted.

A CIP catalogue record of this book is available from the British Library.

Extracts from various cases are reproduced with the kind permission of the ICLR.

An extract from A. Burrows, A Restatement of the English Law of Contract (Oxford: Oxford
Publishing Limited (Academic), 2016) is reproduced with permission of the Licensor through
PLSclear.

ISBN: 978-0-414-07071-4

Thomson Reuters, the Thomson Reuters Logo and Sweet & Maxwell ® are trademarks of
Thomson Reuters.

Crown copyright material is reproduced with the permission of the Controller of HMSO and
the Queen's Printer for Scotland.

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, or transmitted in any
form, or by any means, or stored in any retrieval system of any nature, without prior written
permission, except for permitted fair dealing under the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act
1988, or in accordance with the terms of a licence issued by the Copyright Licensing Agency
in respect of photocopying and/or reprographic reproduction. Application for permission for
other use of copyright material, including permission to reproduce extracts in other
published works should be made to the publishers. Full acknowledgement of the author,
publisher and source must be given.

© 2020 The Estate of Sir Guenter Treitel

 Acknowledgments

Grateful acknowledgment is made to the following authors and publishers for

permission to quote and reproduce material from their works:

The Incorporated Council of Law Reporting for England and Wales

(I.C.L.R.).
An extract from A. Burrows, A Restatement of the English Law of Contract
(Oxford: Oxford Publishing Limited (Academic), 2016) is reproduced with
permission of tlie Licensor through PLSclear.

While every care has been taken to establish and acknowledge copyright, and
contact the copyright owners, the publishers tender their apologies for any
accidental infringement. They would be pleased to come to a suitable
arrangement with the rightful owners in each case.

v
 Professor Sir Guenter Treitel
QC, DCL, FBA
26 October 1928-14 June 2019

It was with great sadness that I learned of the death of my colleague and mentor
while working on this latest edition. The first edition was published in 1962 and
Guenter Treitel was responsible for 11 editions in total, before putting down his
pen (and it was a pen) in 2003. For as long as future editions are my
responsibility, this book will continue to be known simply as “Treitel”. In a world
now somewhat obsessed by brand recognition, it is clear from any conversations
with fellow academics, practitioners and judges that Guenter’s “brand” is highly
valued, though I am fairly certain that he would have objected to such
terminology. This short tribute is a purely personal recollection of my association
with Guenter. For a fuller account of his remarkable life, readers are referred to
his obituary in The Times (https://xvww.thetimes.co.uk/article/professor-sir-
guenter-treitel-qc-obituary-79hzl3s0p) and to the recording of his address to the
Oxford University Chabad Society in 2012 on his early life in Germany and
England as a child refugee on the Kindertransport (https://vimeo.com/48474737).
The latter is a compelling piece of oral history and perfectly captures my urbane,
modest and gentle former colleague.
Apart from sitting in his lectures as an undergraduate, my association with
Guenter began when he invited me to All Souls and asked me to consider whether
I would succeed him as the author of the book for which he was most
well-known. I have Gucnter’s long-time friend and colleague Francis Reynolds to
thank for the suggestion that I might be suited to the task. I take this opportunity
to record my inestimable thanks to him for this and for his role as another of my
mentors over many years. The answer was obvious, but was confirmed over
lunch at Gucnter’s house with him and his wife Phyllis. This will live long in the
memory for the sight of this giant of the legal academic world on his hands and
knees entertaining my very small children. Since that occasion, we would meet,
usually over lunch at All Souls or Keble and sometimes followed by a stroll
through the grounds of his beloved Magdalen, invariably to discuss the merits or
demerits of some recent leading case, but also, from time to time, the merits (only
merits) of Jane Austen’s novels. I never had the courage to admit that I had not

vii
viii

quite found the time to read them all. What marked out any conversation with
Guenter was his careful and precise use of language and I very much hope that
this is still as evident in this edition of his book, as it is in the editions for which
he was responsible.
There are two anecdotes which, to me, capture the way Guenter was so expert
at ensuring the precision to which I have just referred, while at the same time
balancing it with kindness, civility and good humour. When he handed over this
book, he made clear that it was now mine to do with as I saw fit, but that he was
happy to be consulted, if I would find it helpful. On submitting the manuscript for
the first edition under my hand, I sent Guenter a draft of the preface in which I
explained the changes I had made which were not simply the result of further
development of the law. I still have a copy of the letter in reply in his customarily
neat handwriting, in the first paragraph of which he wrote that he detected an
apologetic tone in my covering letter, but assured me that this was unnecessary
because changes were important to keep the book “alive”. The second, rather
longer, paragraph begins: “That said...”.
The second anecdote also stems from the same edition. I was horrified to
discover a rather prominent typographical error on the title page which was also
repeated in the heading to the preface and informed Guenter with some
trepidation. He replied immediately by telephone (itself an unusual event) and
told me not to concern myself, but to take a copy of the fourth edition off my
shelf and look at the title page. It needed Guenter to point out to me that he was
described as “All Souls Reader in English”. Given his love of Jane Austen’s
novels, I suspect he may not have been too disappointed with that. At our next
meeting, he asked if I had also noticed that there was a five year interval between
the third and fourth editions, whereas four years had been customary. He
explained that, on receiving the proofs for the fourth edition, he discovered that
the text had been sabotaged (apparently by a disgruntled employee of the printer)
by converting any appearance of the word “lawful” to “unlawful”, “legal” to
“illegal”, and vice versa; and by inserting or removing the word “not”. Some
delay was therefore inevitable while Guenter worked on detecting and making the
necessary changes. Without wishing to alarm current readers, he told me, with an
evident twinkle in his eye, that he thought he might have found them all by the
time he handed over the book to me.

Oxford
1 October 2019
 Preface to the Fifteenth Edition

In the preface to the 14th edition of this book, it was noted that the courts had
been relatively quiet and the more significant developments had been the result of
legislation. In the four and a half years since then, it is quite the reverse. Indeed,
such has been the extent of the development of the law of contract in the courts
that the need to account for it has delayed the publication of this edition until a
little later than originally planned. An attempt has been made to state the law as at
30 September 2019.
If one starts nonetheless with legislation, the principal development is that
legislation which was referred to in the last edition, but which had not yet come
into force, has now done so: the Insurance Act 2015 and the Consumer Rights Act
2015 (the “CRA”). The relevant provisions of the Insurance Act are dealt with
primarily in Ch.9. The CRA has a much wider application. It was dealt with in the
last edition in a separate chapter on the basis that it remained necessary in the rest
of the book to give an account of what was still the current law at the time of
publication. Any reader who would like an account of the effect of the CRA as a
whole on the law of contract is referred to that separate chapter. While contracts
may still come before the courts which were entered into before the CRA came
into force (1 October 2015), in this edition each of the chapters affected by it
(principally Chs 7, 18, 20 and 21) attempts to state the law as affected by the
CRA and no separate chapter is included. So far as any secondary legislation is
concerned, a note may be made of the Business Contract Terms (Assignment of
Receivables) Regulations 2018 which are dealt with in Ch. 15. The potential
effect of the UK’s possible withdrawal from the EU is dealt with only briefly in
Ch. 1; in part because it may not happen, but also because the effect on the
substantive law of contract as applied in the courts of England and Wales will be
very limited.
When one turns to the courts, there has been significant development at the
highest level. At a time when it is more often pre-occupied with aspects of public
law, it is doubtful whether the Supreme Court (and the House of Lords before it)
has, in the period between editions of this book, decided quite as many cases with
a bearing on the law of contract as it has done on this occasion. In chapter order,
the more significant decisions which have resulted in substantial reorganisation
or rewriting are noted herein.
The decision of the Court in Rock Advertising Ltd v MWB Business Exchange
Centres Ltd might be seen as something of a missed opportunity. One of the
grounds for appeal raised the question of whether part payment of a pre-existing
debt can suffice as consideration in support of a binding variation of the contract

ix
X Preface to the Fifteenth Edition

under which it is due. The Court acknowledged that the decision of the House of
Lords in Foakes v Beer that it cannot, even where it confers a “practical benefit”,
is “probably ripe” for re-examination. However, it was unnecessary to decide the
point (which merited consideration before an enlarged panel) because the appeal
had already been disposed of by a rather dogmatic decision that a contract which
contains a clause requiring certain formalities to be observed for its variation
cannot, in any circumstances, be varied without complying with the formalities
laid down. The proposition that any injustice to which this may give rise is better
dealt with by the doctrine of estoppel seems very likely to be tested in subsequent
cases. This development is considered in Ch.4.
In Arnold v Britton and Wood v Capita Insurance Services Ltd the Court has,
according to Lord Sumption, “sounded the retreat” from the approach to
interpretation advocated by Lord Hoffmann in cases like Investors Compensation
Scheme v West Bromwich Building Society and Chartbrook Ltd v Persimmon
Homes Ltd, but in Ch.6, where these decisions are considered, a preference is
expressed for Lord Justice Beatson’s description of an “adjustment of emphasis”.
A similar “retreat” is evident in the decision in Marks & Spencer Pic v BNP
Paribas Securities Sendees Trust Co (Jersey) Ltd on the tests for implying a term
“in fact”, also considered in Ch.6.
Perhaps the most significant decision of the Court in the period since the last
edition is Patel v Mirza in which the majority of a nine member panel held that
the “reliance rule”, as laid down by the House of Lords in Tinsley v Milligan to
determine the effect of illegality on a claim of civil liability, should no longer be
followed. Instead, the majority preferred a test which asks whether to enforce the
claim “would be harmful to the integrity of the legal system”, a question which is
answered by taking into account a “range of factors”: the underlying purpose of
the prohibition which has been transgressed and whether that purpose will be
enhanced by denial of the claim; any other relevant public policy on which the
denial of the claim may have an impact; and whether denial of the claim would be
a proportionate response to the illegality, bearing in mind that punishment is a
matter for the criminal courts. This has elements of the approach which was
advocated in earlier editions of this book and is welcomed, notwithstanding the
forceful criticism of the minority that it amounts to the introduction of an
unwarranted and uncertain exercise in judicial discretion. The decision is
reflected in a substantially rewritten section of Ch.l 1 on the effects of illegality.
In the same chapter, an account is given of the decision in Tillman v Egon
Zehnder Ltd on the circumstances in which a restrictive covenant may be severed
to avoid a finding that it is in restraint of trade, where the Court found it
necessary to overrule the decision of the Court of Appeal in Attwood v Lamont.
In conjoined appeals in Cavendish Square Holding BV v El Makdessi and
ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis a submission that the rule against penalties should be
abolished was rejected but, acknowledging the anomalous nature of the rule, the
Court advocated a broader approach, and one which it seems is intended to make
it less likely (it was never common) for a clause to be unenforceable as a penalty,
particularly in a commercial contract. This development is reflected in Ch.20 on
Damages which also takes account of a triumvirate of decisions on “mitigation in
fact (Lowick Rose v Swynson Ltd, Tiuta International Ltd v De Villiers Surveyors
 Preface to the Fifteenth Edition xi

Ltd and The New Flamenco), as well as the latest application of the SAAMCO
principle in BPE v Hughes-Holland, and the relevance of post-breach events in
Bunge SA v Nidera BV. The decision in Lowick Rose v Swynson Ltd is also
significant for the observations of the Court on the recovery of damages for third
party loss (Ch. 14). The most significant decision on damages may be that reached
by the Court in Morris-Gainer v One Step (Support) Ltd on the availability of
“negotiating damages”.
Other decisions of the Supreme Court which may be more briefly noted are:
Wells v Devani (certainty and implied terms (Ch.2)); BNY Mellon Corporate
Trustee Services Ltd v LBG Capital No.l Pic (interpretation (Ch.6)); Hayward v
Zurich Insurance Co Pic (the test of inducement for fraudulent misrepresentation
(Ch.9)); Bailey v Angove’s Pty Ltd (irrevocable agency (Ch. 16)); and The Res
Cogitans (obiter comments on the availability of the action for the price in
contracts for the sale of goods and the effect of the Sale of Goods Act 1979
s.49(l)(Ch.21)).
In the Court of Appeal, the most important development is probably the
decision of the Court in FSHC Group Holdings Ltd v Gias Trust Corp Ltd on the
requirements of rectification for “common mistake”. Lord Hoffmann’s obiter
dictum in Chartbrook Ltd v Persimmon Homes Ltd in favour of an objective
interpretation of the parties “common intention” prior to execution of the written
contract is no longer to be followed. Instead, the written contract will only be
rectified if it departs from the subjective common intention of the parties (save
where the prior common intention is already a binding contract). This is a
difficult area, not least because it raises fundamental questions about the extent to
which an objective, or a subjective, approach should be taken to the formation of
the parties’ agreement, but the decision in FSHC is likely to be welcomed by the
majority of the large number of commentators and judges (writing extra-
judicially) who had commented on this area since the decision in Chartbrook. It
is considered in Ch.8. Other significant decisions of the Court of Appeal to
highlight are: Transocean Drilling UK Ltd v Providence Resources Pic and
Nobahar-Cookson v The Hut Group Ltd {contra proferentem (Ch.7)); Goodlife
Foods Ltd v Hall Fire Protection Ltd (incorporation and the test of
reasonableness under the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977 (Ch.7)); First Tower
Trustees Ltd v CDS (Superstores International) Ltd (“no representation” and
“non-reliance” clauses (Ch.9)); Salt v Stratstone Specialist Ltd (damages in lieu
of rescission for misrepresentation (Ch.9)); BV Nederlandse Industrie Van
Eiprodukten v Rembrandt Enterprises (fraudulent misrepresentation (Ch.9) and
damages for third party loss (Ch. 14)); MSC Mediterranean Shipping Co SA v
Cottonex Anstalt (“automatic” termination for repudiatory breach (Ch. 18));
Classic Maritime Inc v Limbungan Maknmr SDN BHD {force majeure (Ch. 19));
Wellesley Partners LLP v Withers LLP (remoteness in cases of “concurrent
liability” for breach of contract and tort (Ch.20)); and Triple Point Technology’ Inc
v PTT Public Co Ltd (liquidated damages (Ch.20)).
In the High Court, a number of decisions have grappled with a burgeoning law
of “good faith”. In particular, whether a term requiring performance in “good
faith” is implied “in law” or “in fact” (e.g. Sheikh Tahnoon Bin Saeed Bin
Shakhboot Al Nehayan v Kent, Bates v Post Office and UTB LLC v Sheffield
xii Preface to the Fifteenth Edition

United Ltd (Ch.6)), and whether the exercise of contractual discretion engages the
so-called “Braganza duty” (e.g. Watson v Watchfinder.Co.UK Ltd, Shurbanova v
Forex Capital Markets Ltd and Faieta v ICAP Management Services Ltd (Ch.6)).
The decision in Canary’ Wharf (BP4) T1 Ltd v European Medicines Agency
provides a comparatively rare opportunity to revisit a plea of frustration of
purpose (as well as frustration for supervening illegality), on this occasion in the
context of the UK’s potential withdrawal from the EU (Ch. 19), while Phones 4U
Ltd v EE Ltd addresses the inter-relationship between different rights of
termination and the recovery of damages for “loss of bargain” (Ch. 18). Finally,
Blue v Ashley provides an entertaining illustration of the principle that an
intention to create legal relations must be assessed objectively and in context; in a
pub to be precise (Ch.2).
I welcome the opportunity to place on record my thanks to the Warden and
Fellows of Keble College for a period of leave to assist in the writing of this
edition and the Oxford Law Faculty for providing the support and infrastructure
which helped to make it possible, not least the provision of the IT services which
are now so indispensable. My thanks also to Maria Zhang who spent a week of
work experience with me as a research assistant, sourcing statutory material. I
have continued to benefit from discussions about the development of the law with
a number of colleagues; in particular, Adrian Briggs, Andrew Dickinson, Andrew
Burrows, James Goudkamp, Donal Nolan, Kelry Loi, Laurence Rabinowitz, Ian
Glick, Steven Elliott, Andrew Summers, Paul Davies, Adam Kramer, William
Day and Carmine Conte. The Senior Publishing Editor, Nicola Thurlow, has seen
through the work on this edition, as she has done on all four editions for which I
have been responsible and was kind enough to extend the deadline for submission
of the text to the maximum extent possible. This was further assisted by Lesley
Davis who dealt patiently with my queries and amendments at the proofs stage.
My greatest thanks, as ever, go to my wife Helen and our children Emily and
Charlotte, for their unending patience, love and support. Emily and Charlotte
were bom around the time I first started my association with this book and now
they are fast approaching adulthood: “Tempus fugit ”, as my late mother was fond
of saying and to whom this edition is dedicated.

Edwin Peel
Oxford, 1 October 2019

The cover image is a painting of the coronation of Edward VII. The cancellation
of the original ceremony because of the King’s illness led to several cases on
mistake or frustration of purpose which are considered in Chs 8 and 19.
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

PAGE
Acknowledgments....................... v
Preface to the Fifteenth Edition. ix
Table of Cases............................ ....xxxi
Table of Statutes ...ccliii
Table of Statutory Instruments.. .cclxvii
Table of European Legislation .. ..cClxix

PARA
1. INTRODUCTION

2. AGREEMENT
1. Offer
(a) Offer defined .2-002
(b) Offer distinguished from invitation to treat .2-006
(c) Where and when an offer takes effect .2-015

2. Acceptance
(a) Acceptance defined .2-016
(b) Communication of acceptance
(i) General rule .2-024
(ii) Exceptional cases .2-025
(Hi) Acceptance by post .2-030
(c) Prescribed method of acceptance. .2-041
(d) Acceptance by silence .2-044
(c) Acceptance in ignorance of offer. .2-049
(f) Acceptance in unilateral contracts. .2-052

3. Termination of Offer
(a) Withdrawal .2-059
(b) Rejection .2-063
(c) Lapse of time .2-065
(d) Occurrence of condition .2-067
(c) Death .2-068
(f) Supervening incapacity.. .2-071

4. Special Cases .2-076

xiii
xiv Contents

5. Certainty................................................................ .2-079
(a) Vagueness .2-080
(b) Incompleteness .2-085
(i) Agreement in principle only .2-086
(ii) Agreements "subject to contract" .2-090
(iii) Execution offormal document required. .2-091
(iv) Terms left open .2-092
(v) Facts to be ascertained .2-099
(vi) Agreement to negotiate .2-100

6. Conditional Agreements
(a) Classification .2-104
(b) Degrees of obligation.... .2-106

3. CONSIDERATION
1. Introduction
(a) General .3-001
(b) Definitions. .3-004

2. Adequacy
(a) Consideration need not be adequate. .3-013
(b) Nominal consideration .3-014
(c) Attitude of equity .3-016

3. Past Consideration. .3-017

4. Consideration Must Move From the Promisee .3-023

5. Consideration Must be of Some Value

(a) Must be of economic value .3-027
(b) Illusory consideration ........... .3-028
(c) Trivial acts or objects .3-031
(d) Gift of onerous property .............. .3-033
(e) Compromise and forbearance to sue
(i) Valid claims .3-034
(ii) Invalid and doubtful claims .3-036
(iii) Actual forbearance .3-040
(f) Performance of existing duty .3-043
(i) Duty imposed by law .3-044
(ii) Duty imposed by contract with promisor .3-047
(iii) Duty imposed by contract with a third party. .3-053
6. Rescission and Variation. .3-056
(a) Rescission .3-057
(b) Variation .3-062
(c) Waiver
(i) At common law .3-066
(ii) In equity’ .3-076
 Contents XV

(d) Part payment of a debt

(i) General rule .3-102
(it) Common law limitations. .3-104
(Hi) Equitable evasion .3-113

7. Proprietary Estoppel.......................... ................ ................ .3-120

(a) Nature and scope of the doctrine .3-121
(b) Requirements .3-126
(i) Representation or assurance .3-127
(ii) Reliance ................... .3-132
(Hi) Detriment .3-136
(c) Effects of the doctrine
(i) Revocability ................................. .3-137
(ii) Operation ofproprietary estoppel .3-140
(Hi) Proprietary and promissory estoppels contrasted .3-149
(iv) Proprietary estoppel and contract contrasted .3-154

8. Special Cases
(a) Defective promises ............. .3-155
(b) Unilateral contracts .3-160
(c) Bankers’ irrevocable credits ... .3-161
(d) Firm offers .3-162
(e) Auction sales without reserve. .3-164
(f) Novation of partnership debts .3-165
(g) Gratuitous bailments .3-168
(h) Gratuitous services .3-170

9. Promises in Deeds .3-172

10. Proposals for Reform .3-176

4. CONTRACTUAL INTENTION
1. Proof of Intention .4-002

2. Illustrations
(a) Mere puffs .4-006
(b) Other statements inducing a contract .4-007
(c) Intention expressly negatived ............................. .4-008
(i) Entire agreement clauses .4-009
(ii) Honour clauses..............................: ............. .4-010
(Hi) “Subject to contract" .4-011
(iv) “No oral modification" clauses .................. .4-016
(v) Other phrases .4-018
(d) Social and domestic arrangements . .4-019
(c) Agreements giving wide discretion to one party .4-023
(f) Letters of intent or of comfort .4-024
(g) Collective agreements .4-025
(h) Other cases .4-026
 xvi Contents

5. FORM
1. General Rule

2. Statutory Exceptions........................................................... .5-004

(a) Contracts which must be made by deed .5-005
(b) Contracts which must be in writing
(i) Bills of exchange, etc .5-006
(it) Consumer credit agreements .... .5-007
(Hi) Contracts for the sale or disposition of an interest
in land .5-009
.............................................
(c) Contracts which must be evidenced in writing
(i) In general ................... .5-014
(ii) Contracts ofguarantee ............................................. .5-015
(d) Formal requirements and electronic documents .5-029

3. Formal Requirements for Rescission and Variation .5-032

(a) Rescission .5-033
(b) Variation ........................ .5-034

6. THE CONTENTS OF A CONTRACT

1. Express Terms............................................................... .6-002
(a) Incorporation of tenns into the contract
(i) Signature .6-004
(ii) Notice .6-007
(b) Joinder of documents ;........................... .6-017
(c) The parol evidence rule
(i) Statement of the rule .6-021
(ii) Cases in which extrinsic evidence is admissible .6-022
(d) Interpretation .6-040

2. Implied Terms............................................. .6-050

(a) Terms implied in fact
(i) The general approach .6-051
(ii) Tests .6-055
(Hi) Factors to be taken into account .6-062
(iv) Examples :.............................. .6-065
(b) Terms implied in law .6-067
(c) Doubtful cases .6-073
(d) Terms implied by custom or trade usage .6-080

7. EXEMPTION CLAUSES AND UNFAIR TERMS

1. Common Law...................................... ............................ .7-005
(a) Construction .7-008
(i) Contra proferentem .7-009
(ii) Burden ofproof ...................... .......................... .7-016
(Hi) Fundamental breach... .7-018
(iv) Seriousness of breach .7-020
 Contents xvii

(v) Negligence and intentional wrongs .7-

(b) Substantive control .7-033
(c) Other common law limitations .7-038

2. Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977 .7-039

(a) Scope ..................... .......... .7-040
(b) Wholly ineffective terms and notices . .7-047
(c) Terms and notices subject to the requirement of
reasonableness :........................ .7-051
(d) The test of reasonableness .7-061
(e) Restrictions on evasion .7-073
(0 Situations not covered by UCTA .7-079

3. Consumer Rights Act 2015....................................... .7-086

(a) Scope ............................................................. .7-088
(b) Wholly ineffective terms and notices .7-094
(c) Terms and notices subject to the requirement of
fairness .7-100
(d) The test of unfairness .7-108
(e) Terms which may be regarded as unfair .7-113
(f) Excluded terms .7-119
(g) Excluded contracts .7-121
(h) Drafting and interpretation .7-123
(i) Effects of unfairness .7-125
0) Restrictions on evasion .7-127

4. Other Legislative Techniques

8. MISTAKE
1. Introduction .8-001

2. Common Mistake
(a) Common law
(i) In general .8-002
(ii) Mistake as to the existence of the subject-matter .8-008
(Hi) Mistake as to the identity of the subject-matter... .8-011
(iv) Mistake as to the possibility ofperforming the
contract .8-012
(v) Mistake as to quality....................................... • .8-015
(vi) Mistake as to quantity .8-022
(vii) Mistake of law .8-023
(b) Equity
(i) General .8-027
(ii) No separate doctrine of common mistake in
equity .8-028
(Hi) Refusal ofspecific performance .8-032
xviii Contents

3. Unilateral Mistake...................................................... .8-034

(a) Types of mistake
(i) Mistake as to the person .8-035
(ii) Mistake as to the subject-matter .8-045
(Hi) Mistake as to the terms of the contract .8-047
(b) Mistake must induce the contract .8-048
(c) When mistake is operative
(i) Contract generally valid .8-051
(ii) Cases in which mistake is "operative" .8-052
(Hi) Mistake may operate against one party only. .8-057
(d) Theoretical basis .8-058
(e) Equity ............................................. .8-059

4. Rectification
(a) In general .8-063
(i) Common mistake ............................. .8-067
(ii) Unilateral mistake .8-076
(Hi) Potential limitations on the remedy

5. Documents Mistakenly Signed

(a) Development .8-086
(b) Scope of the doctrine .8-088

9. MISREPRESENTATION
1. General Conditions of Liability .9-005
(a) False statement of fact or law .... .9-006
(b) Materiality .9-023
(c) Reliance .9-027

2. Damages for Misrepresentation........... .9-036

(a) Liability .9-037
(i) Fraud .9-038
(ii) Negligence at common law .9-042
(Hi) Misrepresentation Act 1967 s.2(l) .9-049
(iv) Contractual statements .9-056
(v) Damages in lieu of rescission .9-066
(b) Measure .9-072
(i) Basis of assessment .9-073
(ii) Remoteness............... ;.................... .9-079
(Hi) Fluctuations in value .9-083
(iv) Misrepresentation Act 1967 s.2(2) .9-087
(v) Limit of the right to damages .9-089
3. Rescission
(a) Introduction .9-093
(b) Rescission for misrepresentation
(i) Contracl voidable .9-099
(ii) Mode of rescission .9-104
 CONTENTS xix

(Hi) Misrepresentation as a defence .9-106

(c) Incorporated misrepresentation .9-108

4. Limits to the Right to Rescind............. .9-110

(a) Effects of Misrepresentation Act 1967 .9-111
(b) Bars to rescission .9-113
(i) Restitution impossible .9-114
(ii) Third party rights .9-124
(Hi) Affirmation .9-125
(iv) Lapse of time .9-129

5. Excluding Liability for Misrepresentation..... .9-132

(a) Scope of the Misrepresentation Act 1967 s.3( 1) .9-133
(b) The reasonableness test .9-149

6. Non-disclosure
(a) General rule .... .9-152
(b) Exceptions .9-157
(i) Representation falsified by later events .9-159
(ii) Statement literally true, but misleading .9-162
(Hi) Custom ......................................... .9-163
(iv) Contracts uberrimae fidei .9-164
(v) Contracts in which there is a limited duty of
disclosure .9-174
(vi) Fiduciary relationship .9-177
(vii) Legislation .9-178
(viii) Duty to clarify legal relationship .9-179
(Lx) Duty of disclosure in performance of contract .9-180
(c) Effects of non-disclosure
(i) In general .9-183
(ii) Effects of Misrepresentation Act 1967 .9-188

7. Misrepresentation and Estoppel .9-190

10. DURESS, UNDUE INFLUENCE AND UNCONSCIONABLE

BARGAINS
1. Duress
(a) In general 10-002
(b) Duress of the person 10-005
(c) Duress of goods 10-006
(d) Economic duress 10-007
(c) Remedies 10-013

2. Undue Influence............................................. 10-015

(a) Actual undue influence 10-019
(b) Presumed undue influence 10-020
(i) The presumption of undue influence 10-021
(ii) Rebutting the presumption 10-030
XX Contents

(c) Remedies 10-033

(d) Third parties
3. Unconscionable Bargains 10-046

4. Statutory Protection.............. 10-049

(a) Unfair credit relationships.... 10-050
(b) Unfair commercial practices 10-051
5. Inequality of Bargaining Power 10-054

11. ILLEGALITY
1. Introduction. 11-002

2. Types of Illegality
(a) Contracts involving the commission of a legal wrong
(i) Contracts amounting to a legal wrong 11-011
(it) Contracts to commit a crime 11-014
(Hi) Contracts to commit a civil wrong 11-015
(iv) Use of subject-matter for unlawful purpose 11-018
(v) Unlawful method ofperformance 11-019
(vi) Contracts to indemnify against liability for unlawful
acts .............................................................................. 11-022
(vii) Promises to pay money on the commission of an
unlawful act ......................................................... 11-027
(viii) Effect of changes in the law ..................................... 11-028
(b) Contracts contrary to public policy 11-032
(i) Agreements by married persons to many 11-038
(ii) Agreements in contemplation of divorce 11-039
(Hi) Agreements inconsistent with parental
responsibility 11-040
(iv) Agreements in restraint of marriage 11-041
(v) Marriage brokage contracts 11-042
(vi) Contracts promoting sexual immorality 11-043
(vii) Contracts interfering with the course ofjustice 11-046
(viii) Contracts purporting to oust the jurisdiction of the
courts 11-047
(ix) Contracts to deceive public authorities 11-056
(x) Sale of offices and honours .......................... 11-057
(xi) Lobbying and bribery 11-058
(xii) Trading with the enemy 11-059
(xiii) Contracts which involve doing an illegal act in a
friendly foreign country 11-060
(xiv) Contracts restricting personal liberty 11-061
3. Effects of Illegality
(a) Introduction 11-062
 Contents xxi

(b) Enforcement............................... 11-069

(i) Position of guilty party.... ...... 11-071
(ii) Position of innocent party 11-075
(Hi) De facto enforcement........ 11-086
(c) Restitution.................................. 11-088
(d) Collateral transactions.............. 11-107
(e) Evaluation.................................. 11-108

4. Contracts in Restraint of Trade

(a) Introduction 11-112
(b) Sale of a business and employment ....... . 11-117
(i) Interest :................................................... 11-118
(ii) Reasonableness ....... 11-125
(Hi) Public interest 11-131
(iv) No actual covenant against competition .................... 11-134
(v) Restraint operating during employment 11-135
(vi) Establishing validity of restraint ......................... 11-136
(c) Restrictive trading and similar agreements 11—137
(d) Trade unions and employers’ associations 11-142
(e) Exclusive dealing
(i) In general ......................... ...... .................. ..................... 11-143
(ii) Whether such agreements are within the restraint of
trade doctrine 11-145
(Hi) Requirements of validity ........ 11-146
(f) Covenants affecting the use of land 11-151
(g) Other agreements 11-153
5. Severance.................................. 11-156
(a) Severance of consideration 11-157
(b) Severance of promises 11-162
(e) Statutory severance 11-169

12. CAPACITY
1. Minors..................................................................... 12-002
(a) Valid contracts
(i) Necessaries ...12-004
(ii) Service contracts ...12-013
(b) Voidable contracts
(i) Cases of voidable contracts 12-019
(ii) Loans for voidable contracts 12-024
(Hi) Rules relating to repudiation 12-025
(iv) Why are these contracts voidable? 12-027
(c) Other contracts 12-028
(d) Liability in tort 12-034
(e) Liability in restitution 12-037
(i) Minors' Contracts Act 1987 s. 3(1) 12-038
(ii) Effects offraud ........................ 12-044
(Hi) Liability in restitution at common law 12-049
xxii Contents

2. Mental Incapacity......................................................... 12-053

(a) In general 12-055
(i) Incapacity known to other party 12-056
(ii) Property and affairs subject to control of the
court 12-057
(b) Necessaries 12-059

3. Intoxication 12-063

4. Corporations
(a) Common law corporations ................................ 12-065
(b) Statutory corporations 12-066
(i) Companies created under the Companies Act
2006................................... '■................................ 12-067
(ii) Corporations incorporated by special statute 12-074
(Hi) Limited liability partnerships 12-085

13. PLURALITY OF PARTIES

1. Plurality of Debtors
(a) Definitions 13-002
(b) Differences between joint, and joint and several,
promises
(i) Parties to the action 13-005
(ii) Judgment.............................................: ........... 13-007
(Hi) Survivorship 13-009
(c) Similarities between joint, and joint and several,
promises
(i) Defence of one 13—011
(ii) Release of one 13-015
(Hi) Contribution 13-019
2. Plurality of Creditors
(a) Definitions 13-022
(b) Parties to the action 13-025
(c) Survivorship 13-027
(d) Defence against one 13-029
(e) Release by one . 13-032
(f) Payment to one . 13-034
(g) Consideration moving from one 13-036

14. THIRD PARTIES

1. Introduction 14-001
2. The Common Law Doctrine 14-004
(a) Parties to the agreement... 14-005
(i) Collateral contracts... 14-006
(ii) Agency 14-009
(Hi) Multilateral contracts 14-010
 Contents xxiii

(iv) Corporations 14-012

(b) Party to the consideration 14-014
(c) Reasons for the doctrine .... ............. 14-015
(d) Development 14-016
(e) Promisee’s remedies 14-019
(i) Specific performance........................... .-. 14—020
(ii) injunction ......................... 14—021
(Hi) Restitution .14—023
(iv) Action for the agreed sum .14-024
(v) Damages 14-025
(vi) Position between promisee and third party 14—045
3. Scope
(a) General 14-049
(b) Liability in negligence to third parties 14-050
(c) Intimidation 14-060
(d) Restitution? 14-061
4. Exemption Clauses and Third Parties. 14-063
(a) The benefit
(i) Privity and exceptions 14-064
(ii) Himalaya clauses 14-068
(Hi) Other drafting devices . . 14-077
(iv) Clauses defining duties 14-078
(b) The burden
(i) Genera! rule 14-079
(ii) Exceptions 14-080
5. Exceptions........................................................................... 14-085
(a) Judge-made exceptions
(i) Covenants concerning land 14-086
(ii) Agency.. ............................................................. 14-087
(Hi) Assignment 14-088
(iv) Trusts ofpromises 14—089
(v) Covenants in marriage settlements 14—098
(b) Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999
(i) Third party’s right of enforcement 14-099
(ii) Right to rescind or vary’ the contract 14-113
(Hi) Promisor's defences against third party 14-121
(iv) Exceptions to third party’s entitlement 14-126
(v) Third party's other rights unaffected ................ 14-129
(vi) Nature of the third party's rights ...................... 14-132
(vii) Effect on Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977 s.2. 14-133
(viii) Promisee’s rights 14-134
(c) Other statutory exceptions 14-136
(i) Insurance 14-137
(ii) Law of Property Act 1925 s.56 14-144
6. Imposing Liability on Third Parties 14-147
xxiv Contents

15. ASSIGNMENT
1. at Common Law

2. Equitable Assignments. 15-006

3. Statutory assignments.................. ... 15-009

(a) Absolute assignment .15—011
(b) Debt or other legal thing in action

4. General Requirements
(a) Formalities ................ 15-016
(b) Intention to assign 15-017
(c) Communication to assignee. 15-019
(d) Notice to debtor
(I) How to give notice 15-020
(ii) Effects of notice 15-021
5. Consideration......................................... 15-024
(a) Assignments of future property ...... 15-025
(b) Statutory assignments 15-026
(c) Equitable assignments ........ 15-027
(i) Before the Judicature Act 1873 15-028
(ii) After the Judicature Act 1873 .. 15-033
6. Subject to Equities................................................... .... 15-037
(a) Defects of title . 15-038
(b) Claims by debtor against assignor 15-039
(i) Claims arising out of the contract assigned.. 15-040
(ii) Claims arising out of other transactions ...... 15-042
(Hi) Assignee cannot recover more than assignor 15-045
7. Negotiable Instruments 15-046

8. Rights Which are not Assignable

(a) Contracts expressed to be not assignable 15-050
(b) Personal contracts 15-053
(c) Mere rights of action.: .......................................... 15-060
(i) Claims in tort .........:..................... 15-061
(ii) Liquidated claims .......................................... 15-063
(Hi) Unliquidated claims 15-064
(iv) Other assignments contrary to public policy. 15-068
9. Assignment by Operation of Law
(a) Death 15-072
(b) Bankruptcy . 15-074
10. Assignment Distinguished From Transfer of
Liabilities........................................................... 15-078
(a) Novation 15-079
(b) Benefit and burden 15-080
 Contents XXV

(c) Operation of law 15-083

16. AGENCY
1. Definition............................................................................ 16-001
(a) Agreement . 16-002
(b) Intention to act on behalf of principal 16-005
(i) Agency distinguished from other relationships 16-007
(ii) Whose agent? .16-011
(c) Commercial agents 16—014
2. Capacity. 16-015

3. Creation of Agency.......................... 16-017

(a) Agency by agreement
(i) Express authority ......... .... 16-018
(ii) Implied authority 16-021
(b) Agency without agreement
(i) Apparent authority 16-024
(ii) Usual authority 16-034
(Hi) Authority of necessity 16-037
(c) Ratification
(i) What amounts to ratification 16-049
(ii) When ratification is possible 16-052
(Hi) Effect of ratification 16-058
4. Effects of Agency.............................................. 16-062
(a) Between principal and third party
(i) Rights ofprincipal against third part)’. 16-063
(ii) Liability ofprincipal to third party’ 16-072
(b) Between agent and third party 16-076
(i) Under the contract 16-077
(ii) Under a collateral contract 16-088
(Hi) Implied warranty of authority 16-089
(iv) Other liability for misrepresentation.... 16-097
(c) Between principal and agent
(i) Rights of agent ......................i.............. 16-098
(ii) Duties of agent 16-107
(d) Effects of non-conscnsual agency 16-116
5. Termination................................. 16-117
(a) Modes of tennination
(i) Consensual agency 16-118
(ii) Non-consensual agency 16-125
(b) Irrevocable agency 16-126

17. PERFORMANCE AND BREACH

1. Method of Performance 17-002
xxvi Contents

2. Vicarious performance....................................................... 17-007

(a) With the creditor’s consent 17-008
(b) Without the creditor’s consent 17-009
(c) Vicarious performance distinguished from assignment 17-012

3. Order of Performance.............................................. 17-014

(a) Condition precedent 17-015
(b) Concurrent condition 17-018
(c) Independent promises 17-019
(d) Criteria for drawing the distinction 17-020
(e) Effects of the distinction 17-024
(f) Wrongful refusal to accept performance
(i) Where injured party terminates the contract 17-025
(ii) Where injured party does not terminate the
contract 17-029
(Hi) Evaluation 17-030

4. Entire and Severable Obligations

(a) Entire obligations ........ . 17-031
(b) Severable obligations 17-035
(c) Distinction between entire and severable obligations 17-037
(d) So-called doctrine of substantial performance 17-040
(e) Voluntary acceptance of benefit . 17-041
(f) Apportionment Act 1870 17-047
(g) Criticism 17-048

5. Breach 17-049
(a) Failure or refusal to perform 17-050
(b) Defective performance 17-056
(c) Incapacitating oneself 17-057
(d) Without lawful excuse 17-059
(e) Standard of Duty
(i) Strict liability 17-065
(ii) Liability based on fault 17-067
(Hi) Fault and excuses for non-performance 17-070
(iv) Conditional contracts 17-071
(f) Breach Distinguished From Lawful Termination. 17-072
6. Anticipatory Breach
(a) The doctrine of anticipatory breach 17-074
(b) Acceptance of the breach 17-079
(c) Effects of accepting the breach
(i) Damages for anticipatory breach ... 17-081
(ii) Termination for anticipatory breach 17-084
(d) Effects of not accepting the breach 17-093

18. TERMINATION FOR BREACH

1. Introduction............................... 18-001
 Contents xxvii

2. Nature and Effect of Termination

(a) Nature 18-005
(b) Effects of termination or affirmation
(i) Termination ............................. 18-016
(ii) Affirmation or failure to terminate. 18-026
(Hi) Change of course 18-028
3. Availability of the Right to Terminate..................... 18-030
(a) General requirement of substantial failure 18-032
(b) Exceptions to the requirement of substantial failure 18—041
(i) Conditions, warranties and intermediate terms. 18-043
(ii) Express provision for determination 18—067
(Hi) Unilateral contracts and options 18-084
4. Limitations on the Right to Terminate 18-087
(a) Affirmation, waiver and estoppel
(i) The different senses of waiver 18-089
(ii) Effect 18-094
(Hi) Requirements 18-095
(b) Acceptance 18-105
(c) Both parties in breach 18-109
5. Stipulations as to Time, 18-111

6. Criticism 18-128

19. FRUSTRATION
I. Development. 19-002

2. Applications
(a) Impossibility 19-009
(i) Destruction of a particular thing 19-010
(ii) Death or incapacity ................................ 19-016
(Hi) Unavailability 19-018
(iv) Failure of a particular source 19-025
(v) Method ofperformance impossible 19-031
(vi) Impossibility and impracticability 19-033
(b) Frustration of purpose 19-042
(c) Illegality 19-045
(i) Illustrations 19-048
(ii) Supervening and antecedent prohibition.... 19-050
(Hi) Partial and temporary illegality 19-052
(d) Prospective frustration 19-054
(c) Alternative obligations ................. 19-056
(f) Events affecting only one party’s performance. .19-059
(g) Special factors affecting land
(i) Leases ......................................... 19-060
(ii) Sale of land ......................... 19-065
xxviii Contents

(h) A question of fact or law?

3. Limitations 19-072
(a) Contractual provision for the event.... 19-073
(i) In general 19-074
(ii) Qualifications 19-076
(Hi) Provision for non-frustrating events 19-079
(b) Foreseen and foreseeable events
(i) In general...........................■............................... 19-083
(ii) Qualifications 19-084
(c) Self-induced frustration 19-089
(i) Events brought about by one party’s conduct. 19-090
(ii) Negligence 19-092
(Hi) Choosing between several contracts 19-093
(iv) Burden ofproof 19-096
4. Effects of Frustration
(a) In general . 19-097
(b) Problems of adjustment 19-100
(i) Rights accrued before frustration 19-101
(ii) Rights not yet accrued . 19-109
(Hi) Casus omissus? 19-115
(iv) Special cases 19—116
(v) Contracts excluded from the 1943 Act 19-118
5. Juristic Basis
(a) Theories of frustration.. .19-123
(b) Practical importance .19-130
(c) Frustration and mistake

20. DAMAGES
1. General Principles
(a) Damages are compensatory
(i) Loss to claimant the criterion ................................. .20-004
(ii) What constitutes loss? .20-005
(Hi) Breach having no adverse effect .20-008
(iv) Damages based on the gain made by the
defendant ...........................................
.20-009
(v) Negotiating damages , .20-014
(vi) Punitive damages , .20-022
(b) Compensation for what? .20-023
(i) Loss of bargain .20-024
(ii) Reliance loss .20-029
(Hi) Restitution .20-032
(iv) Relationship between loss of bargain, reliance loss
and restitution .. .20-033
(v) Incidental loss..... .................................... .20-039
 Contents xxix

2. Quantification ........................ .20-040

(a) The bases of assessment
(i) Reliance and restitution .20-041
(ii) Loss of bargain .................................... .20-042
(b) Actual and market values . .20-050
(i) Where there is a market .20-051
(ii) Where there is no market .20-058
(Hi) Other loss ................... ............................................... .20-060
(c) Speculative damages .20-062
(d) Interest ...................... .20-065
(e) Taxation ...................... .20-071
(f) Alternative modes of performance .20-074
(g) Time for assessment
(i) Time of breach .20-076
(ii) Time of discovery of breach .20-077
(Hi) Possibility of acting on knowledge of breach .20-078
(iv) Reasonableness of acting on knowledge of breach .20-079
(v) Late performance .20-080
(vi) Damages for anticipatory breach .20-081

3. Non-pecuniary Losses
(a) Mental distress
(i) General principle. .20-088
(ii) Exceptions .20-091
(b) Loss of reputation .20-096

4. Methods of Limiting Damages .20-099

(a) Causation .20-100
(b) Mitigation .20-104
(i) The duty to mitigate .20-105
(ii) Mitigation in fact .20-110
(c) Contributory negligence .20-112
(d) Remoteness .20-119

5. Liquidated Damages...................... .20-135

(a) The rule against penalties .20-136
(i) Scope .20-138
(ii) Test .20-152
(Hi) Effect .20-166
(iv) Consumer Rights Act 2015 .20-171
(b) Relief against forfeiture .20-172

21. SPECIFIC REMEDIES

1. ACTION FOR AN AGREED SUM
(a) Distinguished from damages .21-001
(b) Availability of the action
(i) Duty to pay the agreed sunt
(ii) Rules of law .21-006
XXX Contents

(Hi) Conduct of the injured party

2. Specific Relief in Equity
(a) Specific performance .21-018
(i) Granted where damages not "adequate" .21-019
(ii) Discretion .21-031
(Hi) Contracts not specifically enforceable .21-039
(iv) Mutuality of remedy .21-054
(v) Specific performance and third parties .21-056
(b) Injunction
(i) General .21-059
(ii) No indirect specific performance .21-063
(c) Damages and specific performance or injunction. .21-070

22. RESTITUTION
1. Recovery of Money Paid................ .22-002
(a) Failure of consideration .22-003
(b) Money paid under a void contract .22-021
2. Recovery of Non-money Benefits. .22-027

PAGE
Index ...1301
 TABLE OF CASES
I Pump Court Chambers v Horton; sub nom Higham v Horton; Horton v 1 Pump Court
Chambers; Horton v Higham [2004] EWCA Civ 941; [2004] 3 All E.R. 852; [2005]
l.C.R. 292; (2004) 101(33) L.S.G. 34; (2004) 148 S.J.L.B. 911 . ,............................ .3-025
20:20 London Ltd v Riley [2012] EWHC 1912 (Ch) 11-134
21st Century Logistic Solutions Ltd (In Liquidation) v Madysen Ltd [2004] EWHC 231;
[2004] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 92; [2004] S.T.C. 1535; [2004] B.T.C. 5720; [2004] B.V.C. 779;
[2004] S.T.l. 497; (2004) 101(12) L.S.G. 35 QBD 11-056
29 Equities v Bank Leumi (UK) Ltd [1986] 1 W.L.R. 1490; [1987] 1 All E.R. 108; (1987)
54 P. & C.R. 114; [1986] 2 E.G.L.R. 251; (1986) 83 L.S.G. 3597; (1986) 130 S.J. 802
CA (Civ Div) ........................................ 18-125
4 Eng Ltd v Harper [2008] EWHC 915 (Ch); [2009] Ch. 91; [2008] 3 W.L.R. 892; [2008]
Bus. L.R. 1698 Ch D 9-076, 20-038
A Ltd v B Ltd [2015] EWHC 137 (Comm) 2-043
A Roberts & Co v Leicestershire CC [ 1961 ] Ch. 555; [ 1961 ] 2 W.L.R. 1000; [ 1961 ] 2 All
E.R. 545; [59 L.G.R. 349; (1961) 105 S.J. 425 Ch D 8-076
A Schroeder Music Publishing Co Ltd v Macaulay (formerly Instone); sub nom Macaulay
(formerly Instone) v A Schroeder Music Publishing Co Ltd [1974] 1 W.L.R. 1308;
[1974] 3 All E.R. 616; (1974) 118 S.J. 734 HL 7-002, 10-055, 11-114,
11-121, 11-124, 11-130, 11-135,
11-145, 11-148, 11-149, 11-150,
21-068
A Turtle Offshore SA v Superior Trading Inc; A Turtle, The [2008] EWHC 3034; [2009] 2
All E.R. (Comm) 624; [2009] I Lloyd's Rep. 177; [2008] 2 C.L.C. 953 7-023, 7-026
A v B (Copyright: Diary Pages) [2000] E.M.L.R. 1007 Ch D 11-044
A v Lord Grey's School. See Ali v Lord Grey School Governors
A/S Tankexpress v Compagnie Financiere Beige des Petroles SA [1949] A.C. 76; [1948] 2
Ail E.R. 939; (1948-49) 82 LI. L. Rep. 43; [1949] L.J.R. 170; (1949) 93 S.J. 26
HL .......................................... 3-072
AA Dickinson & Co v O’Leary (1979) 254 E.G. 731; 124 S.J. 48 CA (Civ
Div) 16-101
Aaron’s Reefs v Twiss [1896] A.C. 273 HL (UK-Irl) 9-033, 9-129, 9-162
AB Corp v CD Co (The Sine Nomine) [2002] I Lloyd’s Rep. 805 Arb ; 20-004
AB Marinlrans v Comet Shipping Co Ltd (The Shinjitsu Mani No.5) [1985] I W.L.R. 1270;
[1985] 3 All E.R. 442; [1985] I Lloyd's Rep. 568; (1986) 83 L.S.G. 43 QBD
(Comm) 20-116
AB v CD Ltd [2013] EWHC 1376; [2013] B.L.R. 435 .2-019
AB v CD. See B v D
Abbar v Saudi Economic and Development Co (Scdco) Real Estate Ltd [2013] EWHC 1414
(Ch) ........................ 20-016
Abbey National Bank Pic v Stringer [2006] EWCA Civ 338; [2006] 2 P. & C.R.
DGI5 10-016
Abbott v Condici Ltd [2005] 2 Lloyd's Rep. 450 CC (Central London) 16-124
Abbott v RCI Europe [2016] EWHC 2602 (Ch) .7-110
zLloyd's Rep. 573; [1952] I T.L.R. 133; (1952) 96 S.J. 119 CA ............................................ .6-072
Aberfoyle Plantations v Cheng [I960] A.C. 115; [1959] 3 W.L.R. 1011; [1959] 3 All E.R.
910; (1959) 103 S.J. 1045 PC (Mai) 18-125
Abrahall v Nottingham City Council [2018] EWCA Civ 796; [2018] l.C.R. 1425; [2018]
I.R.L.R. 628 . .2-018
Abrahams v Herbert Reiach Ltd [1922] I K.B. 477 CA 20-074
Abrahams v Performing Right Society Ltd [1995] l.C.R. 1028; [1995] I.R.L.R. 486 CA (Civ-
Div) 16-119,17-054,20-158
Abu Dhabi Investment Co Ltd v II Clarkson & Co [2008] EWCA Civ 699 9-040
Abu Dhabi National Tanker Co v Product Star Shipping (The Product Star (No.2)) [1993] 1
Lloyd's Rep. 397 CA (Civ Div) 2-098, 2-110, 6-078,
18-038

xxx i
xxxii Table of Cases

AC Yule & Son Ltd v Speedwell Roofing & Cladding Ltd [2007] EWHC 1360 (TCC);
[2007] B.L.R. 499 2-046
Acer Investment Management Ltd v Mansion Group Ltd [2014] EWHC 3011
(QB)................................................................ • 6-076
Acetylene Corp of Great Britain v Canada Carbide Co (No.2) (1921) 8 LI. L. Rep. 456
CA . . . . ............................................................................................................... 19-021, 19-036
Achille Lauro Fu Gioacchino & C v Total Societa Italiana Per Azioni [1969] 2 Lloyd’s Rep.
65 CA (Civ Div) 19-007
Achilleas, The. See Transfield Shipping Inc v Mercator Shipping Inc (The Achilleas)
Acme Mills v Johnson, 133 S.W. 784 (1911) . ........................................................................ 20-004
Acre 1127 Ltd (In Liquidation) (formerly Castle Galleries Ltd) v De Montfort Fine Art Ltd
[2011] EWCA Civ 87 17-030, 18-038
Actegy Ltd v Society Logitique Nivelloise SPRL (formerly Distec SPRL) [2018] EWHC
2400 (Comm) 16-067
Actionstrength Ltd (t/a Vital Resources) v International Glass Engineering IN.GL.EN SpA
[2003] UKHL 17; [2003] 2 A.C. 541; [2003] 2 W.L.R. 1060; [2003] 2 All E.R. 615;
[2003] 2 All E.R. (Comm) 331; [2005] 1 B.C.L.C. 606; [2003] 1 C.L.C. 1003; [2003]
B. L.R. 207; 88 Con. L.R. 208; (2003) 153 N.L.J. 563; (2003) 147 S.J.L.B.
418 .5-028
Acton v Graham Pearce & Co [1997] 3 All E.R. 909 Ch D . . . 20-062
Acute Property Developments Ltd v Apostolou [2013] EWHC 200 (Ch); [2013] Bus. L.R.
D22 16-030
Adam Opel GmbH v Mitras Automotive (UK) Ltd [2008] EWHC 3205 (QB); [2008]
C. l.L.L. 2561; [2008] Bus. L.R. D55 3-043, 3-051, 10-007,
10-008, 10-009
Adam v Newbigging; sub nom Newbigging v Adam (1888) L.R. 13 App. Cas. 308
HL . .9-038, 9-091, 9-116
Adamastos Shipping Co Ltd v Anglo Saxon Petroleum Co Ltd; sub nom Anglo Saxon
Petroleum Co Ltd v Adamastos Shipping Co Ltd [1959] A.C. 133; [1958] 2 W.L.R. 688;
[1958] 1 All E.R. 725; [1958] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 73; (1958) 102 S.J. 290 HL 6-018
Adams v Lindsell 106 E.R. 250; (1818) 1 B. & Aid. 681 KB 2-015, 2-031, 2-059
Adams v Morgan & Co Ltd [1924] 1 K.B. 751 CA............................ 16-105
Adamson v Jarvis 130 E.R. 693; (1827) 4 Bing. 66 CCP.................. . . . . 11-026, 16-105
Addax Ltd v Arcadia Petroleum Ltd [2000] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 493 QBD
(Comm)................................................................................. 20-057
Adderley v Dixon (1824) 1 C. & S. 607 ............................................. 21-022, 21-028
Addis v Gramophone Co Ltd [1909] A.C. 488 HL 20-088, 20-089, 20-090,
20-096. 20-097
Addison v Brown [1954] 1 W.L.R. 779; [1954] 2 All E.R. 213; (1954) 98 S.J. 338
QBD ......................................................................... 11-048
Adel fa. The. See Adelfamar SA v Silos e Mangimi Martini SpA (The Adel fa)
Adelfamar SA v Silos e Mangimi Martini SpA (The Adel fa) [1988] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 466
QBD (Comm) ................................................... 19-018, 19-055, 19-089
Adler v Ananhall Advisory & Consultancy Services Ltd [2009] EWCA Civ 586; [2009]
N.P.C. 80; [2009] 2 P. & C.R. DG18 6-060. 16-101
Adler v Dickson (No.l) [1955] 1 Q.B. 158; [1954] 3 W.L.R. 696; [1954] 3 All E.R. 397;
[1954] 2 Lloyd's Rep. 267; (1954) 98 S.J. 787 CA 14-064, 14-067, 14-068
Admiralty r- ----------------------------------
Commissioners v Owners r.u- oo . ....SS Amerika [1917]
of the ~ A.C. 38 HL . . 14-025

Advantage Business Systems Ltd v Hopley [2007] EWHC (QB) 1783 11-129
AE Farr Ltd v Admiralty [1953] 1 W.L.R. 965; [1953] 2 All E.R. 512; [1953] 2 Lloyd’s
Rep. 173; (1953) 97 S.J. 491 QBD 7-029
Aectra Refining & Marketing Inc v Exmar NV (The New Vanguard and The Pacifica)
[1994] 1 W.L.R. 1634; [1995] 1 All E.R. 641; [1995] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 191 3-105
AEG (UK) Ltd v Logic Resource Ltd [1996] C.L.C. 265 CA (Civ Div) 6-012
Aegean Dolphin, The. See Dolphin Hellas Shipping SA v Itemslot (The Aegean Dolphin)
Aello, The. See Sociedad Financiera de Bienes Raices SA v Agrimpex Hungarian Trading
Co for Agricultural Products (The Aello)
Aercap Partners 1 Ltd v Avia Asset Management AB [2010] EWHC 2431 (Comm); [2010] 2
C.L.C. 578; [2011] Bus. L.R. D85 20-059
Aerial Advertising v Batchelors Peas Ltd (Manchester) [1938] 2 All E.R. 788
KBD 18-040, 18-105
 Table of Cases xxxiii

Aerospace Publishing v Thames Water [2007] EWCA Civ 3; [2007] Bus L.R. 726; 110 Con.
L.R. 1; [2007] 3 Costs L.R. 389; (2009) 25 Const. L.J. 121; [2007] C.l.L.L. 2429;
(2007) 104(4) L.S.G. 32; (2007) 151 SJ.L.B. 123; [2007] N.P.C. 5 20-039
Afovos Shipping Co SA v R Pagnan & Fratelli (The Afovos) [1983] 1 W.L.R. 195; [1983] 1
All E.R. 449; [1983] I Lloyd’s Rep. 335; [1983] Com. L.R. 83; (1983) 127 SJ. 98
HL 17-086, 17-087, 18-030,
18-070, 18-075, 18-077, 18-080,
18-113
Afovos, The. See Afovos Shipping Co SA v R Pagnan & Fratelli (The Afovos)
African Export-Import Bank v Shebah Exploration and Production Co Ltd [2017] EWCA
Civ 845; [2018] I W.L.R. 487; [2018] 2 All E.R. 144; [2018] 1 All E.R. (Comm) 535;
[2017] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. Ill; [2017] 2 C.L.C. 73; [2017] B.L.R. 469; 173 Con. L.R.
53 7-054
AG Securities v Vaughan; Antoniades v Villiers [1990] I A.C. 417; [1988] 3 W.L.R. 1205;
[1988] 3 All E.R. 1058; (1989) 21 H.L.R. 79; (1989) 57 P. & C.R. 17; [1988] 47 E.G.
193; [1988] E.G. 153 (C.S.); (1989) 86(1) L.S.G. 39; (1988) 138 N.LJ. Rep. 325; (1988)
132 SJ. 1638 HL 6-023
Agapitos v Agnew (The Aegeon (No.I)) [2002] EWCA Civ 247; [2003] Q.B. 556; [2002] 3
W.L.R. 616; [2002] I All E.R. (Comm) 714; [2002] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 42; [2002] C.L.C.
886; [2002] Lloyd’s Rep. I.R. 573; (2002) 99(16) L.S.G. 38; (2002) 146 SJ.L.B.
66 9-158
Agathon, The. See Kissavos Shipping Co SA v Empresa Cubana de Fletes (The Agathon)
Ageas (UK) Ltd v Kwik-Fit (GB) Ltd [2014] EWHC 2178 (QB); [2014] Bus. L.R. 1338;
[2015] Lloyd’s Rep. I.R. I 20-086
Aggeliki Charis Compania Maritima SA v Pagnan SpA (The Angelic Grace) [1995] I
Lloyd’s Rep. 87 CA (Civ Div) 20-113, 21-066
Agia Skepi, The. See Compania Continental del Peru SA v Evelpis Shipping Corp (The Agia
Skepi)
Agip SpA v Navigazione Alta Italia SpA (The Nai Genova and The Nai Superba) [1984] 1
Lloyd’s Rep. 353 CA (Civ Div) 3-082, 8-066, 8-069,
8-076, 8-077
Agnew v Landslbrsakringsbolagens AB [2001] 1 A.C. 223; [2000] 2 W.L.R. 497; [2000] I
All E.R. 737; [2000] I All E.R. (Comm) 321; [2000] C.L.C. 848; [2001] I.L.Pr. 25;
[2000] Lloyd’s Rep. I.R. 317; (2000) 97(9) L.S.G. 39; (2000) 144 SJ.L.B. 109
HL 9-169
Agra Bank, Ex p. See Worcester Ex p. Agra Bank, Re
Agrabele. The. See Gebr Van Weelde Scheepvaart Kantoor BV v Compania Navicra Sea
Orient SA (The Agrabele (No.2))
Agroexport State Enterprise for Foreign Trade v Compagnie Europeenne de Cer6ales [1974]
1 Lloyd’s Rep. 499 QBD (Comm) 2-111
Agrokor AG v Tradigrain SA [2000] I Lloyd’s Rep. 497 QBD (Comm) .. 18-011, 18-039, 19-037.
19-080
Ahmad v Secret Garden (Cheshire) Ltd [2013] EWCA Civ 1005; [2013] 3 E.G.L.R. 42;
[2014] I P. & C.R. DG3 8-081
AIB Group (UK) Pic (formerly Allied Irish Banks Pic and AIB Finance Ltd) v Martin; sub
nom AIB Group (UK) Ltd v Martin; AIB Group (UK) Pic (formerly Allied Irish Bank
Pic and AIB Finance Ltd) v Martin; AIB Group (UK) Pic (formerly Allied Irish Bank
Pic and AIB Finance Ltd) v Gold [2001] UKHL 63; [2002] 1 W.L.R. 94; [2002] I All
E.R. 353; [2002] I All E.R. (Comm) 209; [2002] I E.G. 75 (C.S.); (2002) 99(7) L.S.G.
34; (2002) 146 SJ.L.B. 13; [2001] N.P.C. 183 6-021,6-022
AIB Group (UK) Pic v Mark Redler & Co Solicitors [2014] UKSC 58; [2014] 3 W.L.R.
1367; [2015] I All E.R. 747; [2015] 2 All E.R. (Comm) 189; [2015] P.N.L.R. 10; [2015]
W.T.L.R. 187; (2014) 158(43) SJ.L.B. 49 20-100
A1C Ltd v ITS Testing Services (UK) Ltd (The Kriti Palm) [2006] EWCA Civ 1601; [2007]
1 All E.R. (Comm) 667; [2007] I Lloyd’s Rep. 555; [2007] 2 C.L.C. 223 9-039. 9-159
Aiken v Stewart Wrightson Members Agency Ltd [1996] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 577; [1997] 6 Re.
L.R. 79 CA (Civ Div) 16-114.20-113
Ailion v Spiekcrmann [1976] Ch. 158; [1976] 2 W.L.R. 556; [1976] 1 All E.R. 497; (1976)
31 P. & C.R. 369; (1975) 238 E.G. 48; (1975) 120 SJ. 9 Ch D 11-019, 11-160
xxxiv Table of Cases

Ailsa Craig Fishing Co Ltd v Malvern Fishing Co Ltd (The Strathallan); Malvem Fishing
Co Ltd v Ailsa Craig Fishing Co Ltd [1983] I W.L.R. 964; [1983] I All E.R. 101;
[1983] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 183 (Note); 1982 S.C. (H.L.) 14; 1982 S.L.T. 377; (1983) 80
L.S.G. 2516; (1983) 127 S.J. 508 HL .............................................. • 7-002, 7-012, 7-020
Aiolos, The. See Central Insurance Co Ltd v Seacalf Shipping Corp (The Aiolos)
Air Studios (Lyndhurst) Ltd v Lombard North Central Pic [2012] EWHC 3162 (QB); [2013]
1 Lloyd’s Rep. 63 20-058
Air Transworld Ltd v Bombardier Inc [2012] EWHC 243 (Comm); [2012] 2 All E.R.
(Comm) 60; [2012] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 349; [2012] 1 C.L.C. 145; [2012] Bus. L.R.
DI 09 2-002,2-049,7-010,
7-041, 7-083, 7-085
Aircraft Purchase Fleet Ltd v Compagnia Area Italiana SpA [2018] EWHC 3315
(Comm) 17-027
Ajayi (t/a Colony Carrier Co) v RT Briscoe (Nigeria) Ltd [1964] 1 W.L.R. 1326; [1964] 3
All E.R. 556; (1964) 108 S.J. 857 PC (Nig) ........................................ 3-115,3-116
Aker Oil & Gas Technology UK Pic v Sovereign Corporate Ltd [2002] C.L.C. 557 QBD
(TCC) 9-191
Akerhielm v De Mare; sub nom Baron Uno Carl Samuel Akerhielm v Rolf de Mare [1959]
A.C. 789; [1959] 3 W.L.R. 108; [1959] 3 All E.R. 485; (1959) 103 S.J. 527 PC
(EA) 9-012,9-039
Akici v LR Butlin Ltd [2005] EWCA Civ 1296; [2006] I W.L.R. 201; [2006] 2 All E.R.
872; [2006] 1 P. & C.R. 21; [2006] L. & T.R. 1; [2006] 1 E.G.L.R. 34; [2006] 07 E.G.
136; [2005] 45 E.G. 168 (C.S.); (2005) 149 S.J.L.B. 1352; [2005] N.P.C.
126 18-079
Akiens v Salomon (1993) 65 P. & C.R. 364; [1993] 14 E.G. 97; [1993] 1 E.G.L.R. 10 CA
(Civ Div) 3-129
Aktieselskabet de Danske Sukkerfabrikker v Bajamar Compania Naviera SA (The Torenia)
[1983] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 210 QBD (Comm) 18-052, 19-096
Aktieselskabet Reidar v Arcos Ltd; sub nom A/S Reidar v Acros Ltd [1927] 1 K.B. 352;
(1926) 25 LI. L. Rep. 513 CA 7-027, 20-168
Aktion Maritime Corp of Liberia v S Kasmas & Bros (The Aktion) [1987] 1 Lloyd’s Rep.
283 QBD (Comm) 15-003, 18-038, 18-044,
20-079
Aktion, The. See Aktion Maritime Corp of Liberia v S Kasmas & Bros (The Aktion)
Aktor, The. See PT Berlian Laju Tanker TBK v Nuse Shipping Ltd (The Aktor)
AL Barnes Ltd v Time Talk (UK) Ltd [2003] EWCA Civ 402; [2003] B.L.R. 331; (2003)
147S.J.L.B. 385 11-106
ALHasawi v Nottingham Forest Football Club Ltd [2018] EWHC 2884 (Ch) .9-138
Al-Kandari v JR Brown & Co [1988] Q.B. 665; [1988] 2 W.L.R. 671; [1988] I All E.R.
833; [1988] Fam. Law 382; (1988) 85(14) L.S.G. 50; (1988) 138 N.L.J. Rep. 62; (1988)
132 S.J. 462 CA (Civ Div) 14-059
Al Kishtaini v Shanshal; sub nom Shanshal v Al Kishtaini [2001] EWCA Civ 264; [2001] 2
All E.R. (Comm) 601; [2001] Lloyd’s Rep. Bank. 174; (2001) 98(17) L.S.G.
38 11-072
Al Nakib Investments (Jersey) Ltd v Longcroft [1990] 1 W.L.R. 1390; [1990] 3 All E.R.
321; [1990] B.C.C. 517; [1991] B.C.L.C. 7; (1990) 87(42) L.S.G. 37; (1990) 140 N.L.J.
741 Ch D 9-045
Al Nehayan v Kent [2018] EWHC 333 (Comm); [2018] 1 C.L.C. 216 .. . 10-005. 10-008, 10-010,
10-012. 10-013, 10-014
Al-Saudi Banque v Clark Pixley (A Firm) [1990] Ch. 313; [1990] 2 W.L.R. 344; [1989] 3
All E.R. 361; (1989) 5 B.C.C. 822; [1990] B.C.L.C. 46; [1989] P.C.C. 442; [1989] Fin.
L.R. 353; (1990) 87(10) L.S.G. 36; (1989) 139 N.L.J. 1341 Ch D 9-045
Al Tawfiq, The. See Linnett Bay Shipping Co Ltd v Patraicos Gulf Shipping Co SA (The Al
Tawfiq)
Alan Estates Ltd v WG Stores Ltd [1982] Ch. 511; [1981] 3 W.L.R. 892; [1981] 3 All E R
481; (1982) 43 P. & C.R. 192; (1981) 260 E.G. 173; (1981) 125 S.J. 567 CA (Civ
Div> 2-108. 3-175
Alaskan Trader, The. See Clea Shipping Corp v Bulk Oil International (The Alaskan Trader)
Albazero, The. See Owners of Cargo Laden on Board the Albacntz v Owners of the
Albazero
 Table of Cases XXXV

Albert v Motor Insurers Bureau [1972] A.C. 301; [1971] 3 W.L.R. 291; [1971] 2 All E.R.
1345; [1971] 2 Lloyd's Rep. 229; [1972] R.T.R. 230; (1971) 115 SJ. 588
HL 4-019
Albion Sugar Co v Williams Tankers [1977] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 457 QBD
(Comm) 2-110,17-017
Albright & Wilson UK Ltd v Biachem Ltd [2002] UKHL 37; [2002] 2 All E.R. (Comm)
753; [2003] 1 C.L.C. 637; (2002) 146 S.J.L.B. 241 16-011
Alder v Moore [1961] 2 Q.B. 57; [1961] 2 W.L.R. 426; [1961] 1 All E.R. 1; [1960] 2
Lloyd’s Rep. 325; (1961) 105 SJ. 280 CA 11-134, 20-139
Alderslade v Hendon Laundry Ltd [1945] K.B. 189; [1945] 1 All E.R. 244
CA “
7-031, ----------
17-068
Aldridge v Turner [2004] EWHC 2768 (Ch) .... 10-021
Alec Lobb Garages Ltd v Total Oil Great Britain Ltd [1985] 1 W.L.R. 173; [1985] I All
E.R. 303; [1985] 1 E.G.L.R. 33; (1985) 273 E.G. 659; (1985) 82 L.S.G. 45; (1985) 129
SJ. 83 CA (Civ Div) 10-046, 10-057, 11-113,
11-130, 11-148, 11-151, 11-168
Alecos M, The. See Sealace Shipping Co Ltd v Oceanvoice Ltd (The Alecos M)
Alev, The. See Vantage Navigation Corp v Suhail and Saud Bahwan Building Materials (The
Alev)
Alexander Hamilton Institute v Jones, 234 111. App. (1924) 2-045
Alexander Philp & Co v Knoblauch 1907 S.C. 994; (1907) 15 S.L.T. 61 CS (IH Div
2) .2-011
Alexander v Gibson; 170 E.R. 1250; (1811) 2 Camp. 555 Assizes 16-022
Alexander v Railway Executive [1951] 2 K.B. 882; [1951] 2 All E.R. 442; [1951] 2T.L.R.
69; (1951) 95 SJ. 369 KBD ......................................... 6-008, 7-023
Alexander v Rayson [1936] 1 K.B. 169; 114 A.L.R. 357 CA 11-056, 11-071, 11-073,
11-099
Alexander v Rolls Royce Motor Cars Ltd [1996] R.T.R. 95 CA (Civ Div) 20-094
Alexander v Standard Telephones & Cables Ltd (No.I); Wall v Standard Telephones &
Cables Ltd (No.l) [1990] l.C.R. 291; [1990] I.R.L.R. 55 Ch D 6-081, 21-063
Alexander v Steinhardt Walker & Co [1903] 2 K.B. 208 KBD (Comm) 15-019
Alexander v West Bromwich Mortgage Co Ltd [2016] EWCA Civ 496; [2017] I All E.R.
942; [2017] 1 All E.R. (Comm) 667 6-019
Alf Vaughan & Co Ltd (In Receivership) v Royscot Trust Pic [1999] 1 All E.R. (Comm.)
856 Ch D 10-006
Alfa Finance Holdings AD v Quarzwerke GmbH [2015] EWHC 243 (Ch) .............. 21-046
Alfred C Toepfer International GmbH v Ilex Itagrani Export SA [1993] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 360
QBD (Comm) 17-076
Alfred C Toepfer v Peter Cremer GmbH & Co; sub nom Toepfer v Cremer [1975] 2 Lloyd’s
Rep. 118; (1975) 119 SJ. 506 CA (Civ Div) 18-039
Alfred McAlpine Capital Projects Ltd v Tilebox Ltd [2005] EWHC 281; [2005] B.L.R.27I;
104 Con. L.R. 39; (2005) 21 Const. LJ. 539 20-162, 20-164
Alfred McAlpine Construction Ltd v Panatown Ltd (No.l); sub nom Panatown Ltd v Alfred
McAlpine Construction Ltd [2001] 1 A.C. 518; [2000] 3 W.L.R. 946; [2000] 4 All E.R.
97; [2000] C.L.C. 1604; [2000] B.L.R. 331; (2000) 2 T.C.L.R. 547; 71 Con. L.R. 1;
[2000] E.G. 102 (C.S.); (2000) 97(38) L.S.G. 43; (2000) 150 N.L.J. 1299; (2000) 144
S.J.L.B. 240; [2000] N.P.C. 89 HL 14-002, 14-026, 14-027,
14-028, 14-030, 14-032, 14-033,
14-034, 14-035, 14-036, 14-038,
14-042, 14-043, 14-084, 14-106,
15-045, 20-008, 20-095
Alfred McAlpine Construction Ltd v Panatown Ltd (No.2) [2001] EWCA Civ 485; 76 Con.
L.R. 224 2-095
Alfred McAlpine Pic v BAI (RunOff) Ltd [2000] I All E.R. (Comm) 545; [2000] 1 Lloyd's
Rep. 437; [2000] C.L.C. 812; (2001) 3 T.C.L.R. 5; 69 Con. L.R. 87; [2000] Lloyd's Rep.
LR. 352 CA (Civ Div 18-044,' 18-052, 18-056
Alghussein Establishment v Eton College [1988] I W.L.R. 587; [1991] I All E.R. 267;
[1988] E.G. 69 (C.S.); (1988) 132 SJ. 750 HL 18-005
xxxvi Table of Cases

Ali v Lord Grey School Governors; sub nom A v Headteacher and Governors of Lord Grey
School [2006] UKHL 14; [2006] 2 A.C. 363; [2006] 2 W.L.R. 690; [2006] 2 All E.R.
457; [2006] H.R.L.R. 20; [2006] U.K.H.R.R. 591; 20 B.H.R.C. 295; [2006] E.L.R.
223 ............................................... • • 21-041
Ali v Petroleum Co ofTrinidad and Tobago [2017] UKPC 2; [2017] I.C.R. 531, [2017]
l.R.L.R. 432 6-053
Aliakmon The See Leigh & Sillivan Ltd v Aliakmon Shipping Co Ltd (The Aliakmon)
Alicia Hosiery v Brown Shipley & Co [1970] 1 Q.B. 195; [1969] 2 W.L.R. 1268; [1969] 2
All E R. 504; [ 1969] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 179; (1969) 113 S.J. 466 QBD.................... 9-191,14-008
Allan Janes LLP v Johal [2006] EWHC 286; [2006] I.C.R. 742; [2006] l.R.L.R. 599; (2006)
156 N.L.J. 373 Ch D 11-127
Allardyce v Roebuck; sub nom Gray (Deceased), Re [2004] EWHC 1538; [2005] 1 W.L.R.
815; [2004] 3 All E.R. 754; [2004] W.T.L.R. 779; (2004-05) 7 I.T.E.L.R. 232; [2004]
N.P.C. 109 Ch D 3-162, 18-086
Allcard v Skinner (1887) L.R. 36 Ch. D. 145 CA 10-015, 10-024, 10-030,
10-034. 10-036
Allcard v Walker [1896] 2 Ch. 369 Ch D ....................................................... 8-025, 8-027
Allen v Bloomsbury HA [1993] 1 All E.R. 651; [1992] P.I.Q.R. Q50; [1992] 3 Med. L.R.
257 QBD 1-008,12-005
Allen v Hounga; Hounga v Allen [2014] UKSC 47; [2014] 1 W.L.R. 2889; [2014] 4 All
E.R. 595; [2014] I.C.R. 847; [2014] l.R.L.R. 811; [2014] H.R.L.R. 23; 39 B.H.R.C. 412;
[2014] Eq. L.R. 559 11-063, 11-067, 11-073,
11-109
Allen v Pink 150 E.R. 1376; (1838) 4 M. & W. 140 Exch .6-022
Allen v Rescous 83 E.R. 505; (1676) 2 Lev 174 KB 11-015
Allen v Robles [1969] 1 W.L.R. 1193; [1969] 3 All E.R. 154; [1969] 2 Lloyd's Rep. 61;
(1969) 113 S.J. 484 CA (Civ Div) 18-098
Allhusen v Borries (1867) 15 W.R. 739 21-051
Alliance & Leicester Building Society v Edgestop Ltd (Application for Leave); Alliance &
Leicester Building Society v Dhanoa; Alliance & Leicester Building Society v Samra;
Mercantile Credit Co Ltd v Lancaster; Alliance & Leicester Building Society v
Hamptons, LTA 94/5856/B CA (Civ Div) 9-034
Alliance Bank v Broom 62 E.R. 631; (1864) 2 Dr. & Sm. 289 QB 3-041. 3-042
Alliance Paper Group Pic v Prestwich [1995] l.R.L.R. 25 Ch D 11-124, 11-126, 11-140
Alliance v Tishby [2011] EWHC 1015 (Ch) 8-065
Allianz Insurance Co (Egypt) v Aigaion Insurance Co SA [2008] EWCA Civ 1455; [2009] 2
All E.R. (Comm) 745; [2008] 2 C.L.C. 1013 2-017. 2-021
Allied Dunbar (Frank Weisinger) Ltd v Frank Weisinger [1988] l.R.L.R. 60
QBD 11-124. 11-125. 11-130
Allied Irish Bank Pic v Byme [1995] 2 F.L.R. 325; [1995] 1 F.C.R. 430; [1995] Fam. Law
609 Ch D 10-043
Allied Maples Group Ltd v Simmons & Simmons [1995] I W.L.R. 1602; [1995] 4 All E.R.
907; [1996] C.L.C. 153; 46 Con. L.R. 134; [1955-95] P.N.L.R. 701; (1995) 145 N.L.J.
1646; [1995] N.P.C. 83; (1995) 70 P. & C.R. D14 CA (Civ Div) 20-062, 20-064
Allied Marine Transport v Vale do Rio Doce Navegacao SA (The Leonidas D); Vale do Rio
Doce Navegacao SA v Ocean Freighters Corp [1985] 1 W.L.R. 925; [1985] 2 All E.R.
796; [1985] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 18; (1985) 82 L.S.G. 2160; (1985) 129 S.J. 431 CA (Civ
D'v) 2-003, 2-005, 2 024.
2-044, 3-035, 3 082
~
Allison v Clayhills -
(1907) 97 L.T. --
709 10-024
Allnutt v Wilding [2007] EWCA Civ 412; [2007] B.T.C. 8003; [2007] W.T.L.R. 941;
(2006-07) 9 I.T.E.L.R. 806 8-064
Alloway v Phillips (Inspector of Taxes) [1980] 1 W.L.R. 888; [1980] 3 All E.R. 138; [1980]
S.T.C. 490; [[1980]
1980] T.R. 111 ’‘ .
(1980) 124 S.J. 346 CA (Civ Div) '........................................
111;;(1980) 15 -006
Allseas International Management v Panroy Bulk Transport SA (The Star Gazer and The
Star Delta) [1985] I Lloyd’s Rep. 370 QBD (Comm) 21 026
Allwood v Clifford [2002] E.M.L.R. 3 Ch D 16-111
Alma Shipping Corp of Monrovia v Mantovani (The Dione) [1975] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 115-
(1974) 119 S.J. 164 CA (Civ Div) .. 20-131
Almare Seconda, The. See Blackgold Trading of Monrovia v Almare SpA Navigazione of
Genoa (The Almare Scconda)
 Table of Cases xxxvii

Alpenstow Lid v Regalian Properties Pic [1985] 1 W.L.R. 721; [1985] 2 All E.R. 545;
[1985] 1 E.G.L.R. 164; (1984) 274 E.G. 1141; (1985) 82 L.S.G. 2241; (1985) 135 N.L.J.
205; (1985) 129 S.J. 400 Ch D 4-012,21 -047
Alpha Trading Ltd v Dunnshaw-Patten Lid [1981] Q.B. 290; [1981] 2 W.L.R. 169; [1981] 1
All E.R. 482; [1981] I Lloyd’s Rep. 122; (1980) 124 S.J. 827 CA (Civ
Div) 2-112, 6-065, 16-099,
16-104
Alpstream AG v PK Airfinance Sari; sub nom. PK Airfinance Sari v Alpstream AG [2013]
EWHC 2370; [2014] 1 All E.R. (Comm) 441 7-024
Alsey Steam Fishing Co Ltd v Hillman (The Kirknes) [1957] P. 51; [1957] 2 W.L.R. 20;
[1957] I All E.R. 97; [1956] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 651; (1957) 101 S.J. 65
PDAP 14-064, 14-066
Alstom Signalling Ltd (t/a Alstom Transport Information Solutions) v Jarvis Facilities Ltd
[2004] EWHC 1232; 95 Con. L.R. 55 QBD (TCC) “2-098
Alstom Transport v Tilson [2010] EWCA Civ 1308; [2011] l.R.L.R. 169 4-004
Amalgamated Investment & Property Co Ltd (In Liquidation) v Texas Commerce
International Bank Ltd [1982] Q.B. 84; [1981] 3 W.L.R. 565; [1981] 3 All E.R. 577;
[1982] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 27; [1981] Com. L.R. 236; (1981) 125 S.J. 623 CA (Civ
Div) .................................................................... 3-090.3-094,3-096,
3-098, 3-099, 3-100, 3-121, 3-153,
6-034, 9-020
Amalgamated Investment & Property Co v John Walker & Sons [1977] 1 W.L.R. 164;
[1976] 3 All E.R. 509; (1976) 32 P. & C.R. 278; (1976) 239 E.G. 277; (1976) 120 S.J.
252 CA (Civ Div) 8-033, 19-044, 19-065,
19-090
Amalgamated Metal Trading Ltd v Department of Trade and Industry, Times, 21 March
1989; Financial Tunes, 28 February 1989 QBD 9-048
Amazonia. The. See Furness Withy (Australia) Ltd v Metal Distributors (UK) Ltd (The
Amazonia)
AMB Generali Holding AG v SEB Trygg Liv Holding Aktiebolag. See SEB Trygg Holding
AB v Manches
AMB Imballaggi Plastici Sri v Pacflex Ltd [1999] 2 All E.R. (Comm) 249; [1999] C.L.C.
1391; [2000] E.C.C. 381; [1999] Eu. L.R. 930; (1999) 18 Tr. L.R. 153; (1999) 96(27)
L.S.G. 34 CA (Civ Div) ................................ 16-007
Amble Assets LLP (In Administration) v Longbenton Foods Ltd (In Administration) [2011]
EWHC 3774 (Ch): [2012] I All E.R. (Comm) 764 20-174
Amec Civil Engineering Ltd v Cheshire CC [1999] B.L.R. 303 QBD (TCC) 20-111
Amec Developments Ltd v Jury’s Hotel Management (UK) Ltd (2000) 82 P. & C.R.
286 20-015
AMEC Properties v Planning Research & Systems [1992] B.C.L.C. 1149; [1992] I E.G.L.R.
70; [1992] 13 E.G. 109 CA (Civ Div) .' ;.............................21-021,21-026
Amer Energy, The. See ASM Shipping Ltd of India v TTM1 Ltd of England (The Amer
Energy)
American Accord. The. See United City Merchants (Investments) Ltd v Royal Bank of
Canada (The American Accord)
American Airlines Inc v Hope; sub nom Banque Sabbag SAL v Hope [1974] 2 Lloyd's Rep.
301 HL 2-095
American Cyanamid Co (No.l) v Ethicon Ltd [1975] A.C. 396; [1975] 2 W.L.R. 316; [1975]
I All E.R. 504; [1975] F.S.R. 101; [1975] R.P.C. 513; (1975) 119 S.J. 136 .
HL ................... 21-061
American Trading & Production Corp v Shell International Marine Ltd (The Washington
Trader) [1972] I Lloyd’s Rep. 463; 453 F. 2d. 939, US Ct 19-032
Amev-UDC Finance Ltd v Austin (1986) 162 C.L.R. 170 18-068
Amherst v James Walker Goldsmith & Silversmith Ltd [1983] Ch. 305; [1983] 3 W.L.R.
334; [1983] 2 Ail E.R. 1067; (1984) 47 P. & C.R. 85; (1982) 267 E.G. 163; (1983) 127
S.J. 391 CA (Civ Div) 2-003, 2-005, 3-082,
18-115
Amiri Flight Authority v BAE Systems Pic [2003] EWCA Civ 1447; [2004] 1 All E.R.
(Comm) 385; [2003] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 767; [2003] 2 C.L.C. 662 6-004, 7-083
AML Global Ltd v ExxonMobil Petroleum & Chemical BVBA [2018] EWHC 3321
(TCC) 8-070
xxxviii Table of Cases

Amoco Australian Pty Ltd v Rocca Bros Motor Engineering Co Pty Ltd; sub nom Amoco
Australia Pty v Rocco Bros Motor Engineering Co Pty [1975] A.C. 561; [1975] 2 W.L.R.
779; [1975] 1 All E.R. 968; (1975) 119 SJ. 301 PC (Aus)......................11-070, 11-151, 11-168
AMP (UK) Pic v Barker [2001] O.P.L.R. 197; [2001] Pens. L.R. 77; [2001] W.T.L.R. 1237;
(2000-01) 3 l.T.E.L.R. 414 Ch D 8-064
AMP Advisory and Management Partners A.G. v Force India Formula One Team Ltd (In
Liquidation) [2019] EWHC 2426 (Comm) 22-028, 22-031
Ampleforth Abbey Trs v Turner & Townsend Management Ltd [2012] EWHC 2137 (TCC);
[2012] T.C.L.R. 8; 144 Con. L.R. 115; [2012] C.I.L.L. 3252 ........................................... 7-064
Ampurius Nu Homes Holdings Ltd v Telford Homes (Creekside) Ltd [2013] EWCA Civ
577; [2013] 4 All E.R. 377; [2013] B.L.R. 400; 148 Con. L.R. 1; [2013] 23 E.G. 76
(C.S.) 18-032, 18-099
Amsprop Trading Ltd v Harris Distribution Ltd [1997] I W.L.R. 1025; [1997] 2 All E.R.
990; [1997] 2 E.G.L.R. 78; [1997] 47 E.G. 127; [1996] N.P.C. 154 Ch D .... 14-146, 15-082
Anangel Atlas Compania Naviera SA v Ishikawajima-Harima Heavy Industries Co (No.l)
[1990] 1 Lloyd's Rep. 167 QBD (Comm) 16-111
Anangel Atlas Compania Naviera SA v Ishikawajima-Harima Heavy Industries Co (No.2)
[1990] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 526 QBD (Comm) 3-050, 3-104, 3-108
Anchor 2020 Ltd v Midas Construction Ltd [2019] EWHC 435 (TCC); 184 Con L.R.
215 2-076, 4-013
Anchor Line v Keith Rowell (The Hazelmoor) [1980] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 351 CA (Civ
Div) 17-083, 18-039
Ancienne Maison Marcel Bauche SA v Woodhouse Drake and Carey (Sugar) Ltd; Ancienne
Maison Marcel Bauche SA v EF Hutton & Co (London) Ltd [1982] 2 Lloyd's Rep. 516;
[1983] E.C.C. 405 QBD (Comm) 11-020
Anctil v Manufacturers Life Insurance Co [1899] A.C. 604 PC (Can) 11-047
And So To Bed Ltd v Dixon [2001] F.S.R. 47 Ch D 18-072
Andersen v Fitzgerald (1853) 4 H.L.C. 484 9-025
Anderson v Martindale; 102 E.R. 191; (1801) 1 East 487 KB 13-012, 13-023, 13-024,
13-027
Anderson v Pacific Fire & Marine Insurance Co (1871-72) L.R. 7 C.P. 65
CCP 9-014
Anderson v Thornton 155 E.R. 1415; (1853) 8 Exch. 425 Exch 9-106
Anderton v Clwyd CC; sub nom Bryant v Pech; Home Office v Dorgan; Cummins v Shell
International Trading & Shipping Lid; Bryant v Mike Beer Transport Ltd; Dorgan v
Home Office; Chambers v Southern Domestic Electrical Services Ltd; Cummins v Shell
International Manning Services Ltd [2002] EWCA Civ 933; [2002] 1 W.L.R. 3174;
[2002] 3 All E.R. 813; [2002] C.P. Rep. 71; (2002) 99(35) L.S.G. 38; (2002) 152 N.L.J.
1125; (2002) I46S.J.L.B. 177 8-023
Anderton v Rowland, Tinies, 5 November 1999 QBD (Merc) 2-077
Andra, The. See DGM Commodities Corp v Sea Metropolitan SA (The Andra)
Andre & Cie SA v Cook Industries Inc [1987] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 463 CA (Civ
Div) 17-062
Andre & Cie SA v Tradax Export SA [1983] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 254; [1983] Com. L.R. 2 CA
(Civ Div) 19-037
Andre et Cie SA v Etablissements Michel Blanc el Fils [1979] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 427 CA (Civ
Div) 3-096, 9-020, 9-074,
9-188
Andre et Cie SA v Marine Transocean Ltd (The Splendid Sun) [1981] Q.B. 694; [1981] 3
W.L.R. 43; [1981] 2 All E.R. 993; [1981] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 29; | [1981] Com. L.R. 95;
(1981) 125 SJ. 395 CA (Civ Div) 2-003, 2-005, 2-044,
2-048, 19 090
Andrew Millar & Co Ltd v Taylor & Co Ltd [1916] 1 K.B. 402 CA 19-049, 19-054
Andrews v ANZ Banking Group Ltd [2012] HCA 30; (2012) 290 C.L.R. 595 .................... 20-141
Andrews v Hopkinson [1957] 1 Q.B. 229; [1956] 3 W.L.R. 732; [1956] 3 All E.R. 422;
(1956) 100 SJ. 768 Assizes (Leeds) 14-006
Andrews v Ramsay & Co [1903] 2 K.B. 635 KBD 16-112
Aneco Reinsurance Underwriting Ltd (In Liquidation) v Johnson & Higgins Ltd; sub nom
Aneco Reinsurance Underwriting Ltd v Johnson & Higgs Ltd [2001] UKHL 51; [2001]
2 All E.R. (Comm) 929; [2002] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 157; [2002] C.L.C. 181; [2002] Lloyd's
Rep. l.R. 91; [2002] P.N.L.R. 8 9-168, 20-026, 20-027
 Table of Cases xxxix

Anemone, The. See Clipper Maritime Ltd v Shirlstar Container Transport Ltd (The
Anemone)
Angel Bell, The. See Iraqi Ministry of Defence v Arcepey Shipping Co SA (The Angel Bell)
Angel v Jay [1911] 1 K.B. 666 KBD 9-111
Angelia, The. See Trade and Transport Inc v lino Kaiun Kaisha Ltd (The Angelia)
Angelic Grace, The. See Aggeliki Charts Compania Maritima SA v Pagnan SpA (The
Angelic Grace)
Angelic Star, The. See Oresundsvarvet AB v Lemos (The Angelic Star)
Angell v Duke (1875) L.R. 10 Q.B. 174; (1875) 32 L.T. 320 QBD 6-038, 9-063
Anglia Television Ltd v Reed [1972] 1 Q.B. 60; [1971] 3 W.L.R. 528; [1971] 3 All E.R.
690; (1971) 115 SJ. 723 CA (Civ Div) 20-030,20-031,20-036
Anglian Water Services Ltd v Crawshaw Robbins & Co Ltd [2001] B.L.R. 173; [2001]
N.P.C. 32QBD 20-108
Anglo African Merchants Ltd v Bayley; Exmouth Clothing Co Ltd v Bayley [1970] 1 Q.B.
311; [ 1969] 2 W.L.R. 686; [ 1969] 2 All E.R. 421;[ 1969] I Lloyd’s Rep. 268 (1969) 113
SJ. 281 QBD (Comm) 16-013, 16-110
Anglo African Shipping Co of New York Inc v J Mortner Ltd [1962] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 610 CA
QBD (Comm) 21-013
Anglo Auto Finance Co v James [1963] 1 W.L.R. 1042; [1963] 3 All E.R. 566; (1963) 107
SJ. 534 CA 20-144
Anglo Continental Holidays v Typaldos (London) [1967] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 61; (1967) 111 SJ.
599 CA (Civ Div) 7-056, 20-098
Anglo Petroleum Ltd v TFB (Mortgages) Ltd; TFB (Mortgages) Ltd v Sutton; TFB
(Mortgages) Ltd v Anglo Petroleum Ltd [2007] EWCA Civ 456; [2007] B.C.C. 407;
[2008] I B.C.L.C. 185 11-018
Anglomar Shipping Co v Swan Hunter Shipbuilders and Swan Hunter Group (The London
Lion) [1980] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 456 CA (Civ Div) 7-014
Angus v Clifford [ 1891 ] 2 Ch. 449 CA 9-040
Annadale v Harris I Bro.P.C. 250 11-044
Anns v Merton LBC; sub nom Anns v Walcroft Property Co Ltd [1978] A.C. 728; [1977] 2
W.L.R. 1024; [1977] 2 All E.R. 492; 75 L.G.R. 555; (1977) 243 E.G. 523; (1988) 4
Const. LJ. 100; [1977] J.P.L. 514; (1987) 84 L.S.G. 319; (1987) 137 N.L.J. 794; (1977)
121 SJ. 377 HL 14-054
Annulment Funding Co Ltd v Cowey [2010] EWCA Civ 711; [2010] B.P.I.R. 1304; [2010]
2 P. & C.R. DG22 9-021, 10-018, 10-031,
10-039
Anonima Pelroli Italians SpA and Neste Oy v Marlucidcz Annadora SA (The Filiatra
Legacy) [1991] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 337 CA (Civ Div) 14-055
Anscombe & Ringland v Butchofl'(1984) 134 N.L.J. 37 11-126
Anseombe & Ringland v Watson [1991] 2 E.G.L.R. 28; [1991] 38 E.G. 230 16-100
Antaios Compania Naviera SA v Salen Rederiema AB (The Antaios) [1985] A.C. 191;
[1984] 3 W.L.R. 592; [1984] 3 All E.R. 229; [1984] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 235; (1984) 81
L.S.G. 2776; (1984) 128 SJ. 564 HL 18-052, 18-076, 18-078,
20-108
Antaios, The. See Antaios Compania Naviera SA v Salen Rederiema AB (The Antaios);
Maritime Transport Overseas GmbH v Unitramp SA (The Antaios)
Antama, The. See Marina Shipping v Laughton (The Antama)
Antares, The. See Kenya Railways v Antares Co Pte Ltd (The Antares (Nos 1 and 2))
Antclizo, The. See Food Corp of India v Antclizo Shipping Corp (The Antclizo)
Anton Durbcck GmbH v Den Norske Bank ASA [2005] EWHC 2497; [2006] 1 Lloyd’s
Rep. 93; [2005] 2 C.L.C. 783 QBD (Comm) 14-153
Antonio v Antonio [2010] EWHC 1199 (QB) 10-013
Antonis P Lemos, The. See Samick Lincs Co v Owners of the Antonis P Lemos
Antrobus v Smith; 33 E.R. 16; (1805) 12 Ves. 39 Ch 15-029
Antwerpen, The. See Glebe Island Terminals Ply v Continental Seagram Pty (The
Antwerpen)
Anwar Al Sabar, The. See Gulf Steel Co Ltd v Al Khalifa Shipping Co Ltd (The Anwar Al
Sabar)
Apex Supply Co, Re [1942] Ch. 108; [1941] 3 All E.R. 473 Ch D 20-144
Apley Estates Co Ltd v De Bemales [1947] Ch. 217; [1947] I All E.R. 213; 63 T.L.R. 71;
[1947] L.J.R. 705; 176 L.T. 182; (1947) 91 SJ. 12 CA 13-016
xl Table of Cases

Appleby v Myers; sub nom Appleby v Meyers (1866-67) L.R. 2 C.P. 651 Ex 015-19 ] 09
.................................................................................... ’ ’ 19-113
Appleby v Sleep [1968] I W.L.R. 948; [1968] 2 All E.R. 265; 66 L.G.R. 555; (1968) 112
S.J. 380 DC ................................................................................. 1-008
Applegate v Moss; sub nom Archer v Moss [1971] 1 Q.B. 406; [1971] 2 W.L.R. 541; [1971]
1 All E.R. 747; 3 B.L.R. 1; (1970) 114 S.J. 971 CA (Civ Div)......................................... 20-077
Appleton v Binks; 102 E.R. 1025; (1804) 5 East 148 KB .................. 16-085
Appleton v Campbell 172 E.R. 157; (1826) 2 C. & P. 347 Assizes 11-044
Apvodedo NV v Collins [2008] EWHC 775 (Ch) 8-002, 8-003
Aquafaith. The. See Isabella Shipowner SA v Shagang Shipping Co Ltd (The Aquafaith)
Aquila WSA Aviation Opportunities 11 Ltd v Onur Air Tasmiacilik AS [2018] EWHC 519
(Comm) 9-009
Arab Bank Pic v John D Wood (Commercial) Ltd; Arab Bank Pic v Browne [2000] I
W.L.R. 857; [2000] Lloyds Rep. l.R. 471; [2000] Lloyd's Rep. P.N. 173; [1999] E.G.
133 (C.S.); (1999) 96(47) L.S.G. 30; (2000) 144 S.J.L.B. 6; [1999] N.P.C. 134 CA (Civ
Div) ............................................................................. 20-111
Arab Bank Pic v Zurich Insurance Co; Banque Bruxelles Lambert SA v Zurich Insurance Co
[1999] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 262; [1998] C.L.C. 1351 QBD (Comm) 13-029
Arab Monetary Fund v Hashim (No.9) [1996] I Lloyd’s Rep. 589 CA (Civ
Div) 16-112
Araci v Fallon [2011] EWCA Civ 668; [2011] L.L.R. 440; (2011) 155(23) S.J.L.B.
39 ..................................................................................... 11-131,21-022,21-038,
21-059, 21-061
Aragon, The. See Phibro Energy Inc v Coastal (Bermuda) Ltd (The Aragon)
Aramis, The [1989] I Lloyd’s Rep. 213 CA (Civ Div) •. 2-002, 2-076, 3-008,
3-053, 4-004, 4-027, 6-072
Arawa, The. See Producers Meats Ltd v Shaw Savill & Albion Co Ltd (The Arawa)
ARB v 1VF Hammersmith Ltd [2017] EWHC 2438 (QB); [2018] 2 W.L.R. 1223; [2018] 2
F.L.R. 173; [2018] Med. L.R. 1 11-035
Arbitration between Anglo Russian Merchant Traders Ltd and John Batt & Co (London)
Ltd, Re [1917] 2 K.B. 679 CA 2-111
Arbitration between Comptoir Commercial Anversois and Power Son & Co, Re; sub nom
Comptoir Commercial Anversois v Power, Son & Co [1920] 1 K.B. 868; (1919) I Li. L.
Rep. 266 CA 6-055, 19-042, 19-070,
19-083
Arbuthnot v Fagan; Deeny v Gooda Walker Ltd [1996] L.R.L.R. 135; [1995] C.L.C. 1396
CA (Civ Div) 6-043
Arcadis Consulting (UK) Ltd (formerly Hyder Consulting (UK) Ltd) v AMEC (BCS) Ltd
(formerly CV Buchan Ltd) [2018] EWCA Civ 2222; [2019] 1 All E.R. (Comm) 421;
[2019] B.L.R. 27; [2018] T.C.L.R. 8; 181 Con. L.R. I 2-018
Archbolds (Freightage) Ltd v S Spanglctt Ltd [1961] 1 Q.B. 374; [1961] 2 W.L.R. 170;
[1961] I All E.R. 417; (1961) 105 S.J. 149 CA 11-077, 11-079, 11-081
Archer v Brown [1985] Q.B. 401; [1984] 3 W.L.R. 350; [1984] 2 All E.R. 267; (1984) 81
L.S.G. 2770; (1984) 134 N.LJ. 235; (1984) 128 S.J. 532 QBD 9-033, 9-038, 9-066,
9-074, 20-022
Archer v Hudson (1846) 15 L.J. Ch. 211 10-024
Archer v Stone (1898) 78 L.T. 34.......................................................................... / / i / 16-069
Arcos Ltd v Aronson (1930) 36 Ll.L.R. 108 KBD ........................................ .2-098
Arcos Ltd v EA Ronaasen & Son; sub nom Ronaasen & Son v Arcos Ltd [1933] A.C. 470;
(1933) 45 LI. L. Rep. 33 HL 17-062, 18-037, 18-050.
18 060,18-063,18-129
Arctic Shipping Co Ltd v Mobilia AB (The Tatra) [1990] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 51 QBD
(Comm) 9-179, 16-033
Arctic, The. See Ark Shipping Co LLC v Silverbum Shipping (loM) Ltd
Ardagh Group SA v Pillar Property Group Ltd [2013] EWCA Civ 900; [2014] S TC 26-
[2013] S.T.I. 2564 \ 6 049
Ardennes, The. See Owners of Cargo Lately Laden on Board the Ardennes v Owners of the
Ardennes
Argo Caribbean Group v Lewis [1976] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 289 CA (Civ Div) 5-016
 Table of Cases xli

Argo Fund Ltd v Essar Steel Ltd; sub nom Essar Steel Ltd v Argo Fund Ltd [2006] EWCA
Civ 241; [2006] 2 All E.R. (Comm) 104; [2006] 2 Lloyds Rep. 134; [2006] I C.L.C.
546 2-028, 3-057, 15-017
Argo Hellas, The. See Richard Adler (t/a Argo Rederei) v Sutos (Hellas) Maritime Corp
(The Argo Hellas)
Argo Systems FZE v Liberty Insurance Pte Ltd; Copa Casino, The; sub nom. Liberty
Insurance Pte Ltd v Argo Systems FZ [2011] EWCA Civ 1572; [2012] 2 All E.R.
(Comm) 126; [2012] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 129; [2012] 1 C.L.C. 81; [2012] Lloyd’s Rep. l.R.
67 ............. 3-081,9-128,18-101
Argonaut, The. See Neptune Maritime Co of Monrovia v Koninklijke Bunge BV (The
Argonaut)
Argy Trading Development Co v Lapid Developments [1977] I W.L.R. 444; [1977] 3 All
E.R. 785; [1977] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 67 QBD 3-088, 3-090, 3-170,
9-159
Argyle UAE Ltd v Par-La-Ville Hotel and Residences Ltd (In Provisional Liquidation)
2018] EWCA Civ 1762 22-003
Aribisala v St James Homes (Grosvenor) Dock Ltd [2007] EWHC 1694 (Ch); [2007] 3
E.G.L.R. 39; [2007] 37 E.G. 234; [2007] 25 E.G. 183 (C.S.); [2007] 2 P. & C.R.
DG25 ....................................................................................11-047,20-149
Aries Tanker Corp v Total Transport Ltd (The Aries) [1977] I W.L.R. 185; [1977] 1 All E.R.
398; [1977] 1 Lloyd's Rep. 334; (1977) 121 S.J. 117 HL .......................... 17-037
Aries, The. See Aries Tanker Corp v Total Transport Ltd (The Aries)
Ariston SRL v Charly Records, Independent, 13 April 1990; Financial Times, 21 March .
1990 CA (Civ Div) .20-161
Ark Shipping Co LLC v Silverbum Shipping (loM) Ltd [2019] EWCA Civ 1161; [2019] 2
Lloyd’s Rep. 603 18-045, 18-057
Armagas Ltd v Mundogas SA (The Ocean Frost) [1986] A.C. 717; [1986] 2 W.L.R. 1063;
[1986] 2 All E.R. 385; [1986] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 109; (1986) 2 B.C.C. 99197; (1986) 83
L.S.G. 2002; (1986) 130 S.J. 430 HL 16-025, 16-028, 16-030,
16-034
Armchair Answercall Ltd v People in Mind Ltd [2016] EWCA Civ 1039 . 19-075, 19-092, 19-097
Armitage Ex p. Good. Re (1877) L.R. 5 Ch. D. 46 CA 13-014
Armitage v Nurse [1998] Ch. 241; [1997] 3 W.L.R. 1046; [1997] 2 All E.R. 705; [1997]
Pens. L.R. 51; (1997) 74 P. & C.R. DI3 CA (Civ Div) 7-035
Armstrong & Holmes Ltd v Holmes; Armstrong & Holmes Ltd v Dodds [1993] I W.L.R.
1482; [1994] I All E.R. 826 Ch D.... 3-162
Armstrong v Jackson [1917] 2 K.B. 822 KBD 9-116, 9-129, 9-177,
16-110
Armstrong v Sheppard & Short [1959] 2 Q.B. 384; [1959] 3 W.L.R. 84; [1959] 2 All E.R.
651; (1959) 123 J.P. 401; (1959) 103 S.J. 508 CA 3-124, 3-141
Armstrong v Stokes (1872) L.R. 7 Q.B. 598 16-074
Armstrong v Strain [1952] 1 K.B. 232; [1952] 1 All E.R. 139; [1952] 1 T.L.R. 82
CA 9-041
Amhold Karberg & Co v Blythe Green Jourdain & Co; Theodor Schneider & Co v Burgett
& Newsam [1916] I K.B. 495 CA 8- 010
Amison v Smith (1889) L.R. 41 Ch. D. 348 CA ................................................. 9- 033
Arnold v Britton [2015] UKSC 36; [2015] A.C. 1619; [2015] 2 W.L.R. 1593; [2016] 1 All
E.R. 1; [2015] H.L.R. 31, [2015] 2 P. & C.R. 14; [2015] L. & T.R. 25; [2015] C.I.L.L.
3689 6-043,6-045,6-046,
6-048
Aroca Seiquer y Asociados v Adams; sub nom. Adams v Allas International Property
Services Ltd [2018] EWCA Civ 1589; [2018] P.N.L.R. 32 2-018
Aroso v Coutts & Co [2002] I All E.R. (Comm) 241; [2001] W.T.L.R. 797 Ch
D 13-038
Arpad, The (No.2) [1934] P. 189; (1934) 49 LI. L. Rep. 313 CA 20-058, 20-060, 20-123
Arrale v Costain Civil Engineer [ 1976] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 98; (1975) 119 S.J. 527 CA (Civ
Div) 3-029,3-106.3-115,
3-119, 10-056
Arthur White (Contractors) Ltd v Tarmac Civil Engineering Ltd; sub nom Spalding v
Tarmac Civil Engineering Ltd [1967] 1 W.L.R. 1508; [1967] 3 All E.R. 586; (1967) 111
S.J. 831 HL 7-031
xlii Table of Cases

Artistic Upholstery Ltd v Art Forma (Furniture) Ltd [1999] 4 All E.R. 277, [2000] F.S.R.
311; (1999) 22(12) I.P.D. 22118 Ch D.......................................................................... 2-077
Aruna Mills Ltd v Dhanrajmal Gobindram [1968] 1 Q.B. 655; [1968] 2 W.L.R. 101; [1968]
1 All E.R. 113; [1968] I Lloyd’s Rep. 304; (1967) 111 SJ. 924 Ch D . 18-043, 18-120, 20-110
Asbeek Brusse v Jahani BV (C-488/11) EU:C:2013:341; [2013] 3 C.M.L.R. 45; [2014]
C.E.C. 3; [2013] H.L.R. 38............................................................................................... .7-089
Asfar & Co v Blundell [1896] 1 Q.B. 123 CA 19-010
Ashbum Anstalt v WJ Arnold & Co [1989] Ch. 1; [1988] 2 W.L.R. 706; [1988] 2 All E.R.
147; (1988) 55 P. & C.R. 137; (1987) 284 E.G. 1375; (1988) 132 SJ. 416 |CA (Civ
Div) 2-081, 14-154, 21-021
Ashbury Railway Carriage & Iron Co Ltd v Riche; sub nom Riche v Ashbury Railway
Carriage & Iron Co Ltd (1874-75) L.R. 7 H.L. 653 HL 12-067, 12-077, 16-053
Ashfaq v International Insurance Co of Hannover Pic [2017] EWCA Civ 357; [2018]
Lloyd's Rep. l.R. 228; [2017] H.L.R. 29 7-0091
Ashia Centur v Barker Gillette LLP [2011] EWHC 148 (QB); [2011] 4 Costs L.R.
576 3-008
Ashington Piggeries Ltd v Christopher Hill Ltd; sub nom Christopher Hill Ltd v Ashington
Piggeries Ltd; Christopher Hill Ltd v Fur Farm Supplies Ltd, Norsildmcl (Third Parties)
[1972] A.C. 441; [1971] 2 W.L.R. 1051; [1971] 1 All E.R. 847; [1971] 1 Lloyd’s Rep.
245; (1971) 115 SJ. 223 HL 20-127
Ashmore Benson Pease & Co Ltd v AV Dawson Ltd [1973] I W.L.R. 828; [1973] 2 All E.R.
856; [1973] 2 Lloyd's Rep. 21; [1973] R.T.R. 473; (1973) 117 S.J. 203 CA (Civ
Div) ........... 11-018,11-074,11-106
Ashmore v Corp of Lloyd's (No.2) [1992] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 620 QBD (Comm) 6-065, 6-044
Ashton v Corrigan (1871) L.R. 13 Eq. 76 Ch............................................................................ 21-022
Ashton v Turner [1981] Q.B. 137; [1980] 3 W.L.R. 736; [1980] 3 All E.R. 870; [1981]
R.T.R. 54; (1980) 124 SJ. 792 QBD 11—014, 11-073
Ashville Investments Ltd v Elmer Contractors Ltd; sub nom Elmer Contractors Ltd v
Ashville Investments Ltd [1989] Q.B. 488; [1988] 3 W.L.R. 867; [1988] 2 All E.R. 577;
[1988] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 73 (Note); 37 B.L.R. 55; 10 Con. L.R. 72; (1987) 3 Const. L.J.
193; (1988) 132 S.J. 1553 CA(Civ Div) 8-064
Ashworth v Royal National Theatre [2014] EWHC 1176 (QB); [2014] 4 All E.R. 238;
[2014] l.R.L.R. 526; (2014) 164(7604) N.L.J. 19 21-038
Asiatic Banking Corp, Re; sub nom Symon’s Case (1869-70) L.R. 5 Ch. App. 298 CA in
Chancery 12-021
Askey v Golden Wine Co Ltd [1948] 2 All E.R. 35; 64 T.L.R. 379; (1948) 92 SJ. 411
QBD. ............................................................................................................. 11-022, 11-023
ASM Shipping Ltd of India v TTMI Ltd of England (The Amer Energy) [2009] 1 Lloyd's
Rep. 293 QBD —
20-132-
Aspden v Seddon; Preston v Seddon (1875-76) L.R. 1 Ex. D. 496 CA 15-081
Aspen Underwriting Ltd v Credit Europe Bank NV [2018] EWCA Civ 2590; [2019] I
Lloyd's Rep. 221; [2019] Lloyd's Rep. l.R. 78 6-027, 16-067
AspmaU's Club Ltd v Al Zayat [2007] EWCA Civ 1001; [2008] L.L.R. 1; [2008] Bus. L.R.
2-048
ASRS v Osborne. See Osborne v Amalgamated Society of Railway Servants (No. 1)
Assetco Pic v Grant Thornton UK LLP [2019] EWHC 150 (Comm); [2019] Bus. L.R.
2291 20-063, 20-064
Assicurazioni Generali SpA v Arab Insurance Group (BSC) [2002] EWCA Civ 1642; [2003]
1 W.L.R. 577; [2003] 1 AH E.R. (Comm) 140; [2003] 2 C.L.C. 242; [2003] Lloyd’s Rep.
l.R. 131; (2003) 100(3) L.S.G. 34 9-028, 9-033
Associated British Ports v Ferryways NV [2009] EWCA Civ 189; [2009] 1 Lloyd's Rep.
595; [2009] 1 C.L.C. 350 4-024, 5-016, 20-140
Associated British Ports v Tata Steel UK Ltd [2017] EWHC 694 (Ch); [2018] I All E.R.
(Comm) 170; [2017] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. II; [2017] I C.L.C. 826; 172 Con. L.R.
174 2-095
Associated Distributors Ltd v Hall [1938] 2 K.B. 83; [1938] I All E R 511
CA 20-144
 Table of Cases xliii

Associated Japanese Bank (International) Ltd v Credit du Nord SA [1989] 1 W.L.R. 255;
[1988] 3 All E.R. 902; [1989] Fin. L.R. 117; (1989) 86(8) L.S.G. 43; (1988) 138 N.LJ.
Rep. 109; (1989) 133 S.J. 81 QBD 6-063, 8-001, 8-002,
8-005, 8-006, 8-009, 8-018,8-019,
8-021, 8-029, 19-131
Associated Portland Cement Manufacturers Ltd v Teigland Shipping A/S (The Oakworth)
[1975] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 581; (1974) 119 S.J. 97 CA (Civ Div) 21-022, 21-066
Associated Provincial Picture Houses Ltd v Wednesbury Corp [1948] 1 K.B. 223; [1947] 2
All E.R. 680; (1947) 63 T.L.R. 623; (1948) 112 J.P. 55; 45 L.G.R. 635; [1948] L.J.R.
190; (1947) 177 L.T. 641; (1948) 92 S.J. 26 CA 2-098, 6-078
Astea (UK) Ltd v Time Group Ltd [2003] EWHC 725 QBD (TCC) 18-112
Aster Healthcare Ltd v Shafi [2014] EWCA Civ 1350; [2016] 2 All E.R. 316; [2014]
P.T.S.R. 1507; (2014) 17 C.C.L. Rep. 419 12-059
Astilleros Canarios SA v Cape Hatteras Shipping Co Inc (The Cape Hatteras) [1982] 1
Lloyd’s Rep. 518 QBD (Comm) 16-078
Astley Industrial Trust v Grimley [1963] 1 W.L.R. 584; [1963] 2 All E.R. 33; (1963) 107
S.J. 474 CA 14-006, 18-066
Astley v Austrust Ltd [1999] Lloyd’s Rep. P.N. 758 HC (Bar) 20-116
Astley v Reynolds; 93 E.R. 939; (1731) 2 Str. 915 KB 10-006, 10-009
Astor Management AG (formerly MRI Holdings AG) v Atalaya Mining Pic (formerly Emed
Mining Public Ltd) [2018] EWCA Civ 2407; [2019] I All E.R. (Comm) 885; [2019]
Bus. L.R. 106; [2019] 1 B.C.L.C. 409; [2019] C.l.L.L. 4233 2-102, 2-111, 2-114
Astra Trust v Adams and Williams [ 1969] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 81 QBD (Comm) 2-110
Astra, The. See Kuwait Rocks Co v AMN Bulkcarriers Inc; sub nom MV Astra
AstraZeneca UK Ltd v Albemarle International Corp [2011] EWHC 1574 (Comm); [2011] 2
C.L.C. 252; [2012] Bus. L.R. DI 2-018, 2-096, 7-023,
7-026
Aslro Exito Navegacion SA v Southland Enterprise Co (The Messiniaki Tolmi (No.2))
[1983] 2 A.C. 787; [1983] 3 W.L.R. 130; [1983] 2 All E.R. 725; [1983] Com. L.R. 217;
(1983) 80 L.S.G. 3083; (1983) 127 SJ. 461 HL 21-018,21-025
Asty Maritime Co Ltd v Rocco Guiseppe & Figli SNC (The Astyanax) [1985] 2 Lloyd’s
Rep. 109 CA (Civ Div) 16-052, 16-067
Astyanax. The. See Asty Maritime Co Ltd v Rocco Guiseppe & Figli SNC (The Astyanax)
Aswan Engineering Establishment Co v Lupdine Ltd. See M/S Aswan Engineering
Establishment Co v Lupine Ltd
Ateni Maritime Corp v Great Marine Ltd (The Great Marine (No.l)) [1990] 2 Lloyd’s Rep.
245 QBD (Comm) 18-078, 18-096
Athanasia Comninos and Georges Chr Lemos, The [1990] I Lloyd’s Rep. 277 QBD
(Comm) 17-065
Athenaeum Socety v Poolcy (1853) 3 D. & J. 294 15-037
Athenian Harmony, The. See Derby Resources AG v Blue Corinth Marine Co Ltd (The
Athenian Harmony)
Athos, The. See Telfair Shipping Corp v Athos Shipping Co SA (The Athos)
Alisa SA v Aztec AG [1983] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 579 QBD (Comm) 19-051, 19-124
Atkinson v Denby 158 E.R. 749; (1862) 7 H. & N. 934 Exch.................... 11-096
Atkinson v Ritchie 103 E.R. 877; (1809) 10 East 530 KB............................ 19-003
Atlantic Baron, The. See North Ocean Shipping Co v Hyundai Constniction Co (The
Atlantic Baron)
Atlantic Lines & Navigation Co Inc v Didymi Corp (The Didymi); Atlantic Lines &
Navigation Co Inc v Leon Corp (The Leon) [1984] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 583; (1984) 81
L.S.G. 740 CA (Civ Div) 19-057
Atlantic Lines & Navigation Co Inc v Hallam Ltd (The Lucy) [1983] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 188
QBD (Comm) 9-067,9-119,9-162
Atlantic Shipping & Trading Co Ltd v Louis Dreyfus & Co (The Quantock); sub nom Louis
Dreyfus & Co v Atlantic Shipping & Trading Co Ltd [1922] 2 A.C. 250; (1922) 10 LI.
L. Rep. 707 HL 3 058, 3-067, 11-050
Atlas Express Ltd v Kafco (Importers and Distributors) Ltd [1989] Q.B. 833; [1989] 3
W.L.R. 389; [1989] I All E.R. 641; (1990) 9 Tr. L.R. 56; (1989) 139 N.LJ. Ill; (1989)
133 S.J. 977 QBD (Comm) 3-048
Atlas Maritime Co SA v Avalon Maritime Ltd (The Coral Rose) (No.l) [1991] 4 All E.R.
769; [1991] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 563 CA (Civ Div) ...................................................... 16-007
Another random document with
no related content on Scribd:
 remember to thank him. The tidings reached his wife, who was
Birth of a son.
staying with her relatives in France, just after she had borne him
a son; and such was the general admiration that Louis XIV. and Henrietta Maria,
the mother of Charles II., were willing to answer for the child at the font. He was
named James Louis, in honour of his grandfather and his illustrious sponsor.
No successes against the invader could allay the internal broils of Poland.
Although Casimir had lost his queen in the spring of the year 1667, the outcry
against the French influence continued unabated. On one occasion the king so
far forgot himself as to exclaim, in full diet, “If you are weary of me, I am no less
weary of you.” At length, bowed down by domestic sorrow,
Abdication of
John Casimir. tormented by scruples of conscience,[37] and disgusted at the
turbulence of the nobles, he came to the resolution, which those
words seemed to imply, of laying aside the crown. He took farewell of the Diet in
a dignified speech, in which he asked only for six feet of earth, where his bones
might rest in peace. If he had offended any, he begged them to forgive him as
freely as he forgave those who had offended him. The assembly was profoundly
affected; but, although Sobieski and others from motives of gratitude besought
him to retain the crown, it does not appear that this was the wish of the nation.
We are told that on the day after his abdication the people hardly paid him the
respect due to a gentleman;[38] and much ill-feeling was shown in the Diet, when
the question of his pension came before it. After remaining in Poland too long for
his own credit[39] he retired to France, where Louis XIV. gave him the Abbey of
St. Germain. He was the last of the dynasty of Jagellon,[40] which had reigned in
Poland nearly three hundred years.
The number of aspirants to the vacant throne was, as usual,
Candidates for considerable. The Czar Alexis massed 80,000 troops on the
the throne.
frontier in support of the candidature of his son, but the Poles
took little notice either of him or his manœuvres. The Prince of Condé was
supported by Sobieski and many of the Senate, but the prejudice against a
Frenchman was universal among the lesser nobles. The two candidates most in
favour were Prince Charles of Lorraine, secretly supported by Austria, and Philip,
Duke of Neuberg, who, though sixty years of age, was set up as the real choice
alike of the King of France and the Emperor. The personal advantages of the
former were far superior to those of his rival; he was young, courageous, and
affable; but he had neither money nor lands, while the offers of the Duke of
Neuberg were most advantageous to the state. The nobles, fully
Disorder on the alive to the value of their votes, postponed their decision till May,
field of election.
1669; and meanwhile the field of election was as usual a scene of
wild confusion. A large party clamoured for the exclusion of the Prince of Condé,
and, although Sobieski protested against such a measure as interfering with the
freedom of the proceedings, it was carried through by the violence of its
promoters. At length the tumult rose to such a height that Sobieski, as Grand
Marshal, threatened to fire upon the rioters. Order was thus partly restored; and
soon the cry of a Piast! a Piast! was heard among the crowd. Sobieski might well
suppose that no Piast (or native Pole) would be thought so worthy as himself to
wear the crown, but perhaps he had made himself too unpopular during the
election. The cry was followed by the proposal of Michael Wiesnowiesçki—a
young noble barely thirty years of age, who had neither virtues, nor abilities, nor
riches to recommend him to their suffrages. Yet such was the
Proclamation of fickle excitability of the assembly that he was chosen by
King Michael.
acclamation; and, although he implored to be spared the honour,
and even attempted to escape, he was dragged to the throne, and invested with
the supreme authority.
The reign of such a king could scarcely be prosperous. Ere long the nobles
had cause to regret that they had not chosen the man who of all native Poles
was worthiest to hold the sceptre. Michael himself, when mounted upon the
throne, could not but see that he was far from being the first man in the republic.
The thought wounded his pride, which was soon to become as conspicuous as
his previous humility. He hated Sobieski with a hatred the more
His hatred of violent that he was unable to abridge his powers. He refused the
Sobieski,
grand coach-and-six which it was the established custom for the
general to present to the new sovereign.[41] He plotted with Christopher and
Michael Paz, respectively chancellor and grand general of Lithuania, against the
man with whom they had a long-standing family feud.[42] But
Who was
popular with the Sobieski, besides having the army at his back, was zealously
army. supported by the greater nobles, and although a struggle
appeared imminent the king’s party forbore for a time. Efforts
were made to promote a reconciliation by marrying Michael to the daughter of
Sobieski’s sister;[43] but the plan was overthrown by the arrival of an ambassador
from Leopold to offer him the hand of the Arch-Duchess Eleanor.
Marriage of The honour was too tempting for the weak-minded king; he
Michael.
accepted from the emperor the order of the Golden Fleece, and
hastily concluded the marriage without the sanction of the republic. Loud were
the complaints against this breach of the constitution,[44] even among his own
supporters, the lesser nobles. Austria had always been distrusted by the Poles,
but at this moment there was a special reason for her unpopularity.
On the 2nd of September, 1669, after a most memorable
Siege of defence of more than twenty years, the city and island of Candia
Candia.
Designs of surrendered to the Turkish fleet, commanded by the Grand Vizier,
Ahmed Köprili. Ahmed Köprili. The vast designs of this able minister were the
terror of Europe. Five years earlier (1664) he had concluded with
Austria a twenty years’ peace, on terms most favourable to the Turks; and it was
well known that he only awaited the fall of Candia to resume his schemes against
Italy and the empire. That result was now achieved, a peace was concluded with
Venice, and he was free to turn the Ottoman arms towards the west and north.
The Marquis de St. André,[45] who had commanded in Candia,
Terror in Europe
at wrote into France that Köprili had opened the way to Rome, and
by what he knew of that general’s humour, he doubted not but he
had a design to turn St. Peter’s church into the Grand Signor’s stables. It is even
said that Pope Clement IX. died of grief at the Turkish successes.
The rise of These fears were doubtless in part well founded. During the
Turkey.
Thirty Years’ War, and the intestine struggles which succeeded it
in many of the Christian states, the Turkish power had steadily increased. Two
Grand Viziers of consummate ability, Mahommed Köprili and his son Ahmed, had
strengthened the empire by numerous fortresses, had sternly quelled the
frequent revolts, and had introduced a spirit of order and activity hitherto seldom
seen among the Turks. If the jealousies of France and Austria were to continue, a
wise vizier might well hope ere long to make a tremendous onslaught upon
Christendom. It is not surprising therefore that, after the fall of Candia, the Poles
should resent the Emperor’s crafty aim to secure their taking up arms in his
defence.
But the danger was nearer than they imagined. It threatened
Revolt of the them as usual from the quarter of the Cossacks, who had never
Cossacks.
since their first revolt in 1648 preserved a real peace with Poland.
They viewed with dismay the accession to the throne of a son of their former
oppressor, Jeremiah Wiesnowiesçki, and imagining that his first object would be
to recover his lost estates, they rushed to arms. Immediately after
Sobieski’s the coronation of Michael (October, 1669) Sobieski was called to
campaign of
1670. the frontiers. Acting with his usual vigour, he sowed discord in the
enemy’s ranks, and drove them beyond the Dniester. So
unexpected were these victories that the Vice-Chancellor, writing to him in the
king’s name, says: “Envy itself is compelled to confess that, after God, you alone,
though at the head of so small a force, have once more saved Poland.” But the
king and his general could not agree as to the measures to be
Michael refuses taken with the subdued Cossacks. Sobieski was most anxious for
a policy of
concession. a policy of concession. He had seen signs among them of a
disposition to call in the Turks, which they had attempted to do in
1651, and he hoped to avert such a disaster. But Michael was wholly deaf to
argument. Finding that the Diet was likely to declare against him, he easily
procured its dissolution by the veto (April 17th); and the event which Sobieski
dreaded came to pass. Doroscensko, the Cossack chief, losing
The Cossacks all hope of justice from Poland, and persuaded by his
apply to the
Porte. metropolitan that he would find it at the patriarchate of the East,
went to Constantinople to throw himself at the feet of the Sultan.
Fortune seemed to play into the hands of Ahmed Köprili. The
Köprili prepares restless janissaries needed employment, and he preferred a
for war with
gradual advance upon Austria to a premature declaration of war
Poland. with her. Poland seemed to offer a splendid field. Proclaiming the
Sultan the champion of the oppressed, he prepared a great
armament against the oppressor, and created Doroscensko hospodar of the
Ukraine. But his plans required time to be fully matured, and in the meanwhile he
encouraged the Tartars to burst into Poland (1671).
The republic was at this moment torn in pieces by the violence
Austrian of the Austrian and French factions. Leopold had followed up his
influence in
Poland. success in the marriage of his sister by surrounding the weak
Michael with creatures of his own, who used all their arts to
persuade him that the French monarch had been guilty of bringing in the Tartars
against him. Great efforts were made to include Sobieski in these accusations.
His second general, Demetrius Wiesnowiesçki, the king’s cousin, who had long
been jealous of him, actually put Tartar captives to the torture to obtain evidence,
but without success. Sobieski, though deeply indignant, contented himself with
publishing a scornful manifesto, and then hastened to defend the frontiers. At the
meeting of the Diet (September 20th) the deputies demanded the dismissal of
the Austrian courtiers; and the primate Prazmowski vehemently accused the king
of treachery to the nation, and of breaking his coronation oaths.
Michael calls Terrified at this attack, Michael called out the Pospolite, which
out the
Pospolite. was devoted to his interests; but he paid no attention to the
entreaties of Sobieski that he would use it against the invader. He
could not bring himself to save his kingdom at the expense of strengthening his
rival.
Sobieski determined to act without him. Equipping the regular
“Miraculous army at his own cost, he appeared to be covering Kaminiec, the
campaign” of
Sobieski. key of south-eastern Poland, but when the Tartar hordes had
passed into Volhynia, he marched with surprising celerity through
Podolia, and cut them off from their allies, the Cossacks. Trembling for their
retreat the barbarians broke up their camp, and hurried out of the country as fast
as they could, while Sobieski made a triumphant progress through the Ukraine,
capturing several towns which had not seen a Polish army for twenty years, and
re-establishing communications with the friendly Moldavians. Europe justly
termed this “the miraculous campaign;” yet it was accomplished almost solely by
the strenuous exertions of the commander. His troops were in the worst possible
condition, the Lithuanian army had disbanded without joining him, and the
jealousies of the different palatinates had prevented their sending him any
succours. He now begged for reinforcements to enable him to dictate peace to
the Tartars, and to fortify Poland against the Turks; but the infatuated malice of
the king made it difficult for him even to keep together the troops under his
orders. At this juncture fatigue, and perhaps chagrin at the
December, treatment which he received, laid Sobieski on the bed of sickness
1671. He falls
sick. at Zolkiew; and the king redoubled his efforts to separate him
from the army. The attempt recoiled upon his own head. That
body at once moved their winter quarters to the Palatinate of Russia, and formed
themselves into a confederation to protect their beloved general.
But the king’s attention was soon most unpleasantly diverted
The Sultan elsewhere. In the same month (December) an envoy from the
declares war
against Poland. Porte arrived at Warsaw, and announcing that the Cossacks had
been taken under the protection of the Sublime Porte, demanded
reparation for the injuries which they had suffered. No resource was left to the
king’s party but to treat this as a mere blind intended to conceal from Austria the
Turkish advance on the side of Hungary.
The patience of the great nobles was now completely
Confederation exhausted. Under the leadership of Prazmowski they entered into
against the
king. a confederation to dethrone the king. The advice of the primate
was that they should take the emperor and the Polish queen into
their counsels, and provide some candidate who would be ready to accept the
queen’s hand. Eleanor was consulted, and professed herself devoted to the plan,
if they would choose Charles of Lorraine, to whom she was deeply attached.
Sobieski, now convalescent, was at length made acquainted with
Joined by these projects. He strongly opposed any scheme which would
Sobieski.
place the country under the espionage of Austria; but being firmly
convinced of the necessity of a revolution, he exhorted them to choose the brave
Duke of Longueville, nephew of Condé. Prazmowski, nothing daunted, sent the
queen the duke’s portrait, and was assured of her acquiescence. Everything
seemed favourable for the coup d’état; the Diet went out in a body to meet
Sobieski; and the rejoicings at his recovery were universal, when suddenly news
arrived that the Duke of Longueville had been slain at the passage of the Rhine
(June 12th, 1672). The party of the king, and the Lithuanians, who had trembled
at the coming storm, took fresh courage, while the confederates were
proportionately disconcerted. Michael began to negotiate for Austrian troops to
employ against the Grand General; but in the midst of the
Invasion of the confusion it was announced that Mahomet IV. in person, with the
Sultan.
Grand Vizier and 200,000 men, was advancing upon Kaminiec.
The king’s party loudly averred that this was a fabrication of their opponents; the
Lithuanians swore to defend him to the death; and Sobieski, with
Sobieski others of the leading nobles, was proscribed. This violence raised
proscribed.
a similar storm in the Polish army in Russia, who surrounded their
general, and swore to follow him to the end of the earth. “I accept your oaths,”
was his answer, “and the first thing I require of you is to save Poland.”
Yet Poland seemed lost beyond all hope. Sobieski’s troops scarcely amounted
to 30,000 men, and there was now no chance of uniting them to the Pospolite.
The Grand General flew to Kaminiec to reinforce and provision
The Sultan the garrison; but he was obliged to leave it to its fate, for the
takes Kaminiec,
governor, who belonged to the king’s party, refused to admit any
of his force. Kaminiec was the only great fortress which Poland possessed. Its
natural position—defended on one side by the river Smotrycz, and on the other
by an inaccessible cliff—was very strong; and the Poles constantly boasted that
God, who built it, would alone be able to take it. Yet so skilful were the Turkish
miners, after their long experience in Candia, that it surrendered within a month.
The consternation at Warsaw was fearful. The king assembled the Pospolite at
Golemba, near the capital; but his one aim was to conclude peace on any terms.
The Sultan, sending on an advanced guard to besiege Leopol,
And advances the capital of Russia, encamped at Buczacz, where amongst the
on Leopol.
Podolian mountains he enjoyed his favourite pastime of hunting.
Meanwhile Sobieski had not been idle. A large body of Tartars had passed into
Volhynia in support of the Turks, and, after loading themselves with spoil and with
a vast train of captives, prepared to beat a retreat. Hovering always on their rear,
Sobieski struck a blow whenever it was practicable, and finally caught them in a
defile at Kalusz, in the Carpathian mountains. After a great
Victory of carnage he dispersed them, recovered the spoil, and liberated
Sobieski over
the Tartars. nearly 30,000 Polish captives. He then formed the
His attack upon daring plan of a night attack on Mahomet’s camp.
the Sultan’s
camp. By swift and silent marches he approached
unperceived, and burst with his cavalry on the
imperial tents. For a moment the quarters of the Sultanas were in imminent
danger; but the arrival of succours put an end to the raid.
With his small force Sobieski could do no more than harass the
Peace of Turkish army, yet it was with indignation that he heard that the
Buczacz.
king had concluded a peace at Buczacz (October 18th). Michael
concealed the terms as long as he could; and this increased the suspicions of the
Grand General that they were dishonourable to the country. At length it was
found that Podolia, the Ukraine, and Kaminiec had been ceded to the Porte, and
that the king had consented to pay an annual tribute of 22,000 ducats. In return
for this the Vizier withdrew his army from Polish soil; but he established a vast
military camp with 80,000 men at Kotzim, on the Dniester, to overawe the
vanquished nation. By this treaty, which he had no power to make without the
sanction of the republic, the king of Poland reduced himself to the condition of a
vassal of the Sultan.
Yet the leaders of the Pospolite at Golemba, who dreaded
Hostility of the
nothing so much as a long campaign, were loud in his defence.
Pospolite to
Sobieski. Suspecting that Sobieski would not accept the peace, they
renewed against him the sentence of proscription, and
confiscated his estates. On receiving intelligence of these attacks, Louis XIV.
offered him a French dukedom and a marshal’s bâton; but Sobieski would not
forsake his country. Indeed his position did not justify it; for his party grew
stronger day by day, while the Pospolite, ill-furnished with provisions, and rent in
pieces by faction, gradually melted away. At length the queen took on herself the
part of a mediator, and she was seconded by the Lithuanians, who were weary of
anarchy. It then appeared how strong a hold Sobieski had upon the affections of
the people. When his exploits during the war became generally
Popularity of known there was an immense reaction in his favour. His personal
Sobieski.
enemies, among whom may be reckoned the
Plot against king, viewed this with the utmost uneasiness, and
him.
a few of them concocted an atrocious plot against
him. They suborned a poor noble, named Lodzinski, to come forward in the Diet
and declare that Sobieski had sold Kaminiec to the Turks for 1,200,000 florins,
and that this money had been seen in waggons on the way to its destination.
This calumny raised the Diet to the highest pitch of excitement, and they would
have put the slanderer in irons but for the intervention of the king. The army
declared that they would wash out the insult with blood; but Sobieski calmed
them, and proceeded to Warsaw to demand a trial. He was welcomed with
acclamations; the palace of Wiasdow, decorated with all the trophies of
Zolkiewski, was placed at his disposal; and Michael sent the Grand Chamberlain
to pay him his compliments. Lodzinski, when brought before a
Discovered and tribunal of senators and deputies, lost all courage, and confessed
punished.
that he had invented the story for the sum of 1,000 francs—
promised him by certain of the nobles. He was condemned to death; but the
sentence could not be carried out without the consent of the Grand Marshal, and
he was therefore suffered to live. The nobles who had been his instigators had to
ask pardon on their knees.
The first object of Sobieski in this sudden blaze of his popularity
He persuades was to procure the rupture of the peace of Buczacz. He at once
the Diet not to
accept the published a memorandum, setting forth necessary reforms in the
peace. administration and the army, and promising that their adoption
would ensure a successful struggle against the Turks. The Diet
sent him a message in high-flown Polish rhetoric, in which they begged for the
presence of that hero “who, if the system of Pythagoras be true, seems to unite
in his own frame the souls of all the great captains and good citizens of the past.”
He took his seat amid great enthusiasm (March 14th), and easily persuaded the
deputies to follow his advice. They did not now dream of paying the tribute. They
decreed an army of 60,000 men, the establishment of a war-tax, and the
despatch of embassies for foreign aid, and finally placed in the hands of Sobieski
full powers both for peace and war. This was in effect to put aside the king, and
make the Grand Marshal Regent; but no voice was raised against the proposal.
Since there was only a trifling sum remaining in the exchequer,
Their Sobieski persuaded the Diet to use the treasure stored up as a
confidence in
him. reserve in the castle of Cracow. This, with an opportune subsidy
which arrived from the Pope, was deposited with him instead of
the Grand Treasurer, as the person most likely to use them to advantage.
 Such unbounded confidence carried with it a responsibility which
His difficulties. would have dared to face. Sobieski accepted it cheerfully, yet at
the outset of the campaign he had to meet two difficulties, which
he had not foreseen. His old enemy, Michael Paz, caused much delay by arriving
late with his Lithuanians (Sept. 16th); and at the last moment the king announced
that he should put himself at the head of the force. He came, and reviewed the
troops; but during the ceremony he was seized with illness; and the next morning
the Poles raised a hurra on seeing the “bonzuk,” or long lance, in front of the
Grand General’s tent in an upright position—a sure sign that the king had quitted
the army. The next day (October 11th), with a force of nearly 40,000 men, and
forty small field-pieces, Sobieski began his march.
His plan of the campaign, though simple, was boldly conceived.
His plan of the
Having heard that Caplan Pacha, with 30,000 men, was
campaign.
advancing through Moldavia to reinforce the camp at Kotzim, he
proposed to cut him off upon his march, and then to turn upon the camp itself. If
he should succeed in capturing it, he hoped to isolate Kaminiec, and so to take it
by blockade, and recover all that had been ceded to the Porte. He was not
dismayed at the lateness of the season; for he trusted that on this account the
Turks would be less willing to fight.
The banks of the Dniester were reached after three weeks’
March of the march, and here a mutiny broke out among the troops, which was
army.
industriously fomented by Michael Paz. They clamoured for rest
and provisions; Sobieski promised them both under the tents of the barbarians.
“My resolution,” said he, “is not to be shaken. I intend to bury myself here or to
conquer. You must do the same, or nothing can save you.” His firmness had the
desired effect. They crossed the Dniester and penetrated into the forest of
Bucovina; but Sobieski was obliged to alter his original plans. It would have been
madness to wait for Caplan Pacha and so give him time to join the camp; and yet
his undisciplined soldiery shrank from the inclement plains of Moldavia. He
therefore turned aside, and advanced at once on the entrenchments at Kotzim.
The castle of that name was strongly situated on the right bank
Castle and of the Dniester, about twelve miles from Kaminiec. Between this
camp of Kotzim.
and the advancing Poles, at the height of twenty feet from the
plain, was the vast fortified camp, unassailable on the side of the river, where the
rocks were steep, and surrounded on the other sides by a broad ravine. The
ground immediately in front of the entrenchments was marshy, and broken up by
rapid streams, and the Turks could sweep it from end to end with their admirable
artillery. Within the lines were ranged 80,000 men, the flower of the Turkish army,
most of them spahis and janissaries, under the command of the Seraskier[46]
Hussein.
The day after the Poles arrived (November 10th) Paz declared an assault to be
impracticable, and announced his intention to retire. Sobieski replied with truth
 that flight was not in their power except at the risk of
Insubordination extermination. The enterprise indeed seemed superhuman; but
of Paz.
the Grand General ranged his troops in order of battle with full
confidence of success. During the day a large body of Moldavians and
Wallachians,[47] who occupied a spot on the left of the Turkish camp, deserted to
the Poles, and greatly raised their drooping spirits. When night came on, the
troops were still kept under arms, although the weather was most severe. The
snow fell thickly, but Sobieski visited all the posts, and animated the men by his
cheerful manner. At length he reclined on the carriage of a cannon and waited for
the dawn.
It was the crisis of his great career; yet he could not but regard
Crisis in the scene as one of happy omen. On this spot, more than fifty
Sobieski’s life.
years before, his father had gained a splendid victory over the
Turks, which was followed by a long peace. Then indeed the Poles were the
defenders instead of the assailants of the entrenchments; but that only made the
victory in prospect seem a more glorious prize.
At length the day broke, and Sobieski observed the enemy’s
He attacks the lines much thinner than before. Many of the Turks, exhausted by
entrenchments.
the unwonted cold, had sought their tents, not dreaming for one
moment that the Poles would dare to attack them in daylight. “This is the moment
that I waited for,” cried Sobieski to his staff, and ordered at once a general
assault. After galloping down the lines with a few encouraging words, he alighted
from his horse, and led the infantry and his own dismounted dragoons against
the entrenchments. The Turks, whose attention was distracted by a false attack
on another side, left a weak point in his front, and Sobieski, though somewhat
bulky, was the first to scale the parapet. He was splendidly supported by his
dragoons; and the battle now raged in the midst of the tents. The infantry might
possibly have been surrounded, had not Jablonowski, Palatine of Russia, dashed
up a steep place with the best of the cavalry, and rushed to the rescue. Sobieski
was supplied with a horse, and the Turks now began to give way
Rout of the on all sides. Soliman Pacha, at the head of the janissaries, tried
Turks,
to retreat in good order to the plain; but he was charged by the
Lithuanians in front and by the Poles in the rear, and his fine troops were cut to
pieces. He is said to have himself fallen by the hand of Sobieski, who despoiled
him of his jewelled scimitar.[48] The Turks fled in confused masses to the bridge
leading to the castle; but Sobieski had provided against this by sending his
brother-in-law, Radziwill, with a large detachment to seize it. The only retreat now
left them was the steep rock on the river-side, from which thousands precipitated
themselves into the stream; but the Polish cavalry dashed in after
And complete them, and completed their destruction. The carnage lasted more
victory of the
Poles. than three hours, during which half the Turkish force was slain,
and a large number taken prisoners. A remnant of the original
force succeeded in escaping to Kaminiec, among whom was the Seraskier
Hussein.[49]
It is difficult to credit the statement of some historians, none of
Question of thewhom are contemporaries, that Sobieski put all the prisoners to
prisoners.
the sword.[50] Such an act would have been opposed alike to his
natural disposition and to his defensive policy. Plain facts are against it; for some
days later the commander at Kaminiec, delighted at the generous terms which he
granted to the garrison of the castle (November 13th,), released fifty prisoners
without ransom. Had such an enormity been committed, it must certainly have
reached his ears, and would have met with a prompt revenge.
Immediately after the victory, the Jesuit confessor of Sobieski
Joy of the erected an altar in the pavilion of the Seraskier, and the whole
Poles.
army, with tears of joy, attended a thanksgiving service. The
occasion was indeed affecting, especially to their commander. Ere long
Christendom was resounding with the praises of one who had obtained the
greatest victory over the infidel since the battle of Ascalon. Sobieski was most
anxious to follow up his success. Honour forbade him to desert the Moldavians
and Wallachians, who had come over to him at considerable risk; and he wished
to cut off from the Turks all chance of return. He put his cavalry in
Their advance motion towards the Danube with the hope of encountering Caplan
upon the
Danube. Pacha. But that general, on hearing of the disaster at Kotzim,
retreated in all haste, and took with him the Turkish garrisons on
the left bank of the Danube. Such was the panic in Turkey that the Sultan, who
had advanced to Silistria, hurried back to his capital. But the victorious advance
of the Poles was stopped, as they were entering Wallachia, by the news of the
death of their king.
On the night before the battle of Kotzim (November 10th),
Death of Michael breathed his last at Leopol. His death was caused by
Michael.
disease of the kidneys, but he had hastened his end by the
gluttonous voracity of his appetite, which passed all bounds. He is said to have
devoured in a few hours a thousand Chinese apples, presented to him by the
municipality of Dantzic. His last hours were embittered by the fruits of his
pusillanimous submission to the Turks. A few days before his death a Turkish
Aga[51] arrived, bearing the caphtan, or robe of vassalage, which the Sultan
sends to his tributaries. The king was too ill to receive him, and he had to depart
without executing his commission.
The incapacity of Michael deserves our pity, because the crown
His character. was thrust upon him against his will. But he was worse than
incapable. Envy and fear alternately gained the mastery over his despicable
nature. His evil genius pursued him to the end. Such was the general exultation
at the victory of Kotzim that there was no pretence of mourning for him; and his
body was conveyed to Warsaw, almost unnoticed, beneath the triumphal arches
erected in honour of his rival.
Three weeks elapsed after Michael’s death before the news of
Exultation in the Grand General’s victory arrived at Warsaw (December 4th),
Poland.
and in the interval the Poles had given up the army for lost. It is
somewhat surprising that in a nation so excitable the sudden revulsion of feeling
did not result at once in the proclamation of Sobieski. Madame de Sevigné,[52]
writing just after the news arrived in Paris (December 22nd), says that there no
one doubted that he would be elected. The official journals of France speak of
him as “worthy of the throne which he had saved.” But the Grand General himself
was aware what a stormy opposition his candidature would raise among the
Lithuanians. It was thus with unfeigned sorrow that he received the orders of the
primate-interrex to bring back his victorious troops. Everything remained to be
done towards reaping the benefits of his glorious success. The Turks were still in
Kaminiec; Moldavia and Wallachia were yet to be freed; and the Cossacks who
had sent in their submission had to be confirmed in their allegiance. He did all he
could. Though his men deserted him daily by hundreds for the
Return of the more profitable field of election, he left a garrison in Kotzim, and
Polish army.
detached 8,000 men for the defence of his two allies. Then, with a
heavy heart, he retraced his steps to Leopol. He was here met by deputies from
the most distant palatinates, who showered upon him their congratulations; but
he showed no disposition to proceed to Warsaw. He knew too well the activity of
his enemies in the Diet, and he was quite content that it should appear that he
had no personal pretensions.[53]
While her late husband was still lying in state the queen had
Projects of the resumed her favourite project of retaining the crown by a
queen.
marriage with Charles of Lorraine. That prince left the army of the
Rhine and appeared upon the frontiers; and the emperor massed troops for his
support on the borders of Little Poland. Sixteen[54] other
Candidates.
candidates appeared in the field, but many of these were
Protestant princes, whose chances were small; and the contest seemed to lie
between Lorraine and the young Duke of Neuberg, the son of his old antagonist.
The latter, though a German prince, was supported by Louis XIV. as the heir of
the Elector Palatine, and therefore an important ally. No artifice
Preparations for was spared by the queen’s party to prevent the proposal of
the election.
Sobieski. The Pazes brought forward a measure in the Diet for
the exclusion of a Piast on account of the misfortunes of the late reign; and when
this was unfavourably received, they insisted that the new king must be
unmarried.[55] The Diet refused to sanction any measures of exclusion, and
wrote to press for Sobieski’s presence. But the hero was now at Zolkiew
attending his wife in a dangerous illness, upon the origin of which various
rumours were afloat. His enemies averred that he had poisoned her himself to
secure the queen’s hand; his friends hinted that the queen had done so to be
sure of the crown at all hazards. These speculations were set at rest by the
recovery of Madame Sobieska; but her husband still delayed to appear in public.
He wrote, however, to the Diet, strongly urging that the threatening attitude of the
Turks rendered any delay dangerous; and it was decided on this advice that the
election should not be made by the whole Pospolite, but by a representative Diet.
But the regulation was practically ineffective; for the Diet being held in the open
air, the nobles attended as usual to watch the conduct of their deputies.
The field of Wola, close to Warsaw, was the scene of this
The field of unique spectacle. On the day when the Diet of election met (April
election.
20) all the orders of the state attended a grand service at the
cathedral, and then set out on horseback for the field. In the midst of the plain
was pitched the “szopa,” or grand pavilion of the Senate, surrounded by a ditch
to keep off intruders, and carefully closed to the public. Not far off, under the
open sky, sat the “kolo” or circle of deputies from the palatinates. Round it were
ranged 100,000 of the nobility, jealously watching each turn of their deliberations.
Every human passion found vent in this motley assemblage. Riots were frequent,
and seldom ended without effusion of blood. Each noble was attended by as
many valets as he could muster, who were generally a worse element of disorder
than their lords. To these must be added a crowd of mercenaries from
neighbouring nations, all eagerly intriguing for their national candidate. Long
tables were set up as the head-quarters of each faction, and at these was heard
an unceasing babel of noisy tongues. In the vacant spaces of the arena jousts
were frequent, for which each palatinate brought out a splendid cavalcade. This
was the occasion when all gratified the national craving for display. Many a poor
noble would readily sell his vote, perhaps to more than one candidate, for the
pleasure of donning a brilliant attire. Costly furs adorned their persons, and were
almost hidden beneath a profusion of jewels. The same reckless display of the
precious metals was seen in their accoutrements. Nor were the bishops outdone
by the cavaliers. Green, broad-brimmed hats, with yellow or red pantaloons, were
the common ornaments of the soldiers of the Church. Every kind of merchandise
was represented. The Jews, who were ordinarily interdicted from appearing in
Warsaw, made the most of the short period when the restriction was removed.
The plain around the “szopa” was dotted with an immense multitude of tents,
most of them devoted to buying and selling, but all decorated in the most
gorgeous style. Several pavilions of superb workmanship and oriental
magnificence, containing a large suite of luxurious chambers, attracted special
attention. They were the quarters of the Seraskier Hussein—transported entire
from the camp at Kotzim—and were now surmounted by the shield of Sobieski.
Nothing more was wanting to kindle the liveliest enthusiasm for
Absence of the absent general. His name was in every mouth, and his non-
Sobieski.
appearance caused much surprise. The “kolo” elected as their
marshal the Lithuanian Sapieha, a personal friend of the Grand General; and
when Michael Paz pushed his hatred so far as to revive his proposal for the
exclusion of a Piast (April 15), the attempt was so invidious that a party began to
form in Sobieski’s favour, though their designs were at first studiously concealed.
On the 2nd of May it was announced that Sobieski was
His arrival. approaching Warsaw. His arrival on the plain created the most
unbounded enthusiasm; the Diet rose and went to meet him; and his progress for
miles resembled a triumph. Sixty-six banners—the spoil of Kotzim—were carried
before him, to be his present, as he said, to his future king; and behind him
marched a corps of captive janissaries, who were enrolled as his body-guard.
Like his countrymen, he did not disdain ostentation; for on the croup of his horse
hung a shield of gold, embossed with scenes from his great career. Nature had
gifted him with handsome features and a dignified mien.[56] Though stout, he was
tall and erect; and his full flashing eye marked him at once as a man of
frankness, bravery, and powers of observation. Yet along with his military air his
face wore a sweetness of expression, which was indescribably attractive. Few of
the Pules could have witnessed his entry without feeling that he was the fittest
person to be their king.
Two days after (May 4) the Senate forsook the “szopa” and
He proposes took their seat in the “kolo;” and Sobieski, rising in his place,
the Prince of
Condé. proposed the Prince of Condé, whose military qualities, he said,
made him the proper choice of a nation which would have to
struggle for its existence. This unexpected event caused an immense
commotion. The vast multitude was split into the old factions of France and
Austria, and for days it seemed as if there was no solution but civil war. At length
(May 19) Sobieski consented to withdraw the name of Condé if the queen would
consent to marry the Duke of Neuberg. Hoping against hope for the success of
her party, Eleanor rejected this offer with disdain; and the Lithuanians, who were
encamped on the other side of the Vistula, assumed a menacing attitude towards
the Polish Pospolite. At this crisis the Bishop of Cracow, who was discharging the
functions of interrex,[57] gave orders for the singing of the canticles with which
the debates were accustomed to close. The familiar chant and its associations
produced a dead calm in the tempestuous assembly, and at its conclusion the
prelate ordered each palatinate to range itself round the banner of its palatine.
While his orders were being obeyed, Jablonowski, palatine of
Jablonowski Red Russia, the home of Sobieski, took advantage of the silence
proposes
Sobieski. to address all those within hearing. He represented Lorraine as
too devoted to the empire, Neuberg as too young, Condé as too
old, to command their armies with vigour. The times, he said, required a prince
who was well acquainted alike with them and with their military system. He was
here interrupted with loud shouts of “A Piast!” a sound which soon collected
round the speaker all the surging masses of the Pospolite. The palatine
continued, “Among ourselves is a man whose sacrifices for his country have
caused him to be everywhere considered the first of the sons of Poland. In
placing him at our head we shall do no more than consecrate his own glory;
fortunate to be able to honour by one title the more the remainder of a life, of
which every day has been dedicated to the republic. We know that such a king
will maintain our nation in the rank which it occupies in the world. Such a man as
he is will never make himself a vassal of the infidel. Poles, if we are deliberating
here in peace on the election of a king, if the most illustrious dynasties are
courting our suffrages, if our liberty remains secure, if even we have a country
left to us, to whom do we owe it? Remember the marvels of Slobodyszcza, of
Podhaic, of Kalusz, above all, of Kotzim, and take for your king John
Sobieski!”[58]
A tempest of applause followed this speech, and as it subsided the voice of
one of the castellans was heard calling upon the Poles to elect that man whom
the Turks would be most anxious to exclude. Then from the midst of the host
rose loud shouts of “Long live King John Sobieski!” and thirteen palatinates at
once took up the cry. The regular soldiers pressed forward towards the szopa,
exclaiming, “We will all perish together, or have for our king John Sobieski!” It
was already late in the evening, but the Polish nobility crowded round the
interrex, and besought him to take the votes. One voice alone
He postpones was raised against the proposition; it was that of Sobieski. He
the voting.
firmly declared that he could not accept the crown if it was offered
at the fall of night, and in a manner so sudden that no one could have time to
recollect himself. “If,” said he, “there is no other protest against the election being
made this night, I shall oppose my veto.” This disinterested advice was
unwillingly followed, and Sobieski left the plain to encounter the reproaches of his
wife.
Several writers—principally the later Polish historians, who treat him with
marked disfavour—endeavour to detect in his conduct throughout the
proceedings the signs of crafty intrigue. Yet by this last step he
And shows his allowed his enemies time to combine against him, and gave the
fair dealing.
queen’s party a fair opportunity of reviving their scattered
energies. But such generosity is often the best policy. The succeeding night and
day (May 20th) were spent in a general effort to secure unanimity; and the riches
and influence of his brother-in-law, Radziwill, were of much service to Sobieski in
the Lithuanian camp. But his own popularity was still more effectual. It had ever
been the privilege of the Grand General of Poland to quarter his army where he
pleased, and pay nothing for their maintenance. Bribes had formerly been freely
taken from those districts that desired exemption,[59] but Sobieski, unwilling to
exercise such tyranny, had always quartered his army on the frontiers. This was
now remembered with gratitude. His promises to the republic also
His offers to the became the topic of admiring conversation. He engaged to pay
republic.
the pension to the queen dowager, to redeem the crown jewels,
to found a military school for the young nobility, to build two fortresses wherever
the Diet should appoint, and to furnish the regular army with six months’ pay.
Early in the day two of the family of Paz came to register their opposition with the
interrex, but before night fell they had been persuaded to forego it. The next
morning Sobieski was proclaimed king amid the acclamations of
Proclamation of both Principalities, and took the name of John III. The same day a
Sobieski.
vast crowd attended him to the cathedral of St. John to return
thanks for his election.
Europe in general was less astonished at his elevation than
Opinion of Poland. At Constantinople and at Vienna alone the news was
Europe.
received with disfavour. Köprili saw less chance of recovering his
conquests; and the emperor was bitterly mortified to see upon the throne one
who had always belonged to the faction of France. Poland was daily becoming of
greater importance in the struggle between Louis and Leopold. When the
republic was bleeding from the shocks of her barbarous neighbours, and from a
succession of internal troubles, it mattered little to these great potentates who
filled the throne; but now that she had proved herself strong enough to withstand
the dreaded Turk, and wise enough to offer the crown to her victorious general,
she was looked upon with a respect to which she had hitherto been a stranger.
This was fully appreciated at the Papal Court. Clement X., besides his
benediction, sent assurances of friendship to the new king; and Oliva, the
general of the Jesuits, wrote his joyful congratulations to “the pillar of the republic
and the avenger of Christendom.” It is difficult to discover how far the court of
France had a hand in his election. Its ambassador, Forbin-Janson, bishop of
Marseilles, arrived somewhat late (May 8th), and certainly brought instructions to
support the Duke of Neuberg. But he probably discovered ere long which way the
tide was setting, and, adapting himself to circumstances with a Frenchman’s
ready wit, he caused it to be supposed that he had used his influence in favour of
Sobieski. Louis XIV. followed the same course; and in an official note of the same
summer claimed this election as one more instance of the universal triumph of
his policy.
The machinations of the enemies of Sobieski did not cease
Schemes of the with the withdrawal of their veto. Their first move was to give
king’s enemies.
notice of a law which should oblige him to divorce his wife and
marry the queen dowager. But on this point the king was firm. “I have not yet
finally promised,” said he, “to accept the royal functions. If this is the price of your
sceptre, you need not offer it.” The proposal was soon dropped; and Eleanor,
after receiving a visit from the king, retired to Thorn, whence she still exercised a
baneful influence upon the course of affairs. Four years later (1678) she gave her
hand to her old suitor, the Prince of Lorraine.
Whilst the Diet was drawing up the pacta conventa, Sobieski discovered from
an examination of his revenues that he could not fulfil his promise of paying the
army for six months. Without delay he frankly owned his inability; and his
opponents made this a pretext for inserting in the contract new restrictions on the
military authority of the king. They also wished to bind him to an eternal alliance
with the court of Vienna. It was soon known that the king would not yield to these
terms; and several stormy scenes took place in the Diet. At length the obnoxious
articles were struck out; and on the 5th June the king received the instrument of
his election from the hands of the interrex.
There now remained only the ceremony of coronation—which was a necessary
prelude to the exercise of the royal functions. But the steady
Danger from advance of the Turks grew daily more disquieting. Caplan Pacha
the Turks.
had rallied the remnants of the defeated force, and the Sultan
was already marching with a great army through Bulgaria. John saw that the
delay would be dangerous, and had the courage to disappoint the queen[60] and
the whole court by deferring the ceremony. He told the Senate that at such a time
a helmet became his forehead better than a diadem. “I know well,” said he, “that I
have been elected, not to represent the republic, but to fight for her. I will first fulfil
my mission.” Touched by his magnanimity, the Diet resolved to place in his hands
at once all the powers of a king.
Meantime the Turks, accompanied by the Tartars, had
They invade the appeared in great force before the camp at Kotzim. The Polish
Ukraine.
commander, terrified at their numbers, soon surrendered, and the
whole garrison was put to the sword. But instead of advancing into the heart of
Poland, Köprili turned to the right into the Ukraine, where the Muscovites, who
also laid claim to that territory, now lined the Borysthenes with 100,000 men.
Hearing that he was occupied in besieging small places in the Ukraine, John
promised to render a good account of him before the close of the campaign. He
kept his word. While the Turks drove the Muscovites beyond the
Campaign of river, he suddenly appeared in Podolia and besieged Bar. The
1674.
Sultan, who was distracted by news of intrigues at his capital and
the advance of the Sophy upon Babylon, suddenly broke up his camp, and made
for Silistria. The Tartars disappeared at the sound of “the Polish hurricane,” as
they called Sobieski; and John was left to deal with the hapless country which
had but just suffered from the Ottoman invasion. He could see no
John winters in mode of protecting its peasants from the yoke of the nobility but
the Ukraine.
to place his army in winter quarters in the neighbourhood, and to
teach the cavalry by his own example what clemency and what self-sacrifice they
ought to show towards a subject people. Resistance was only to be expected; for
his haughty hussars had never before passed a winter away from their estates.
But when they saw their king take up his abode in the miserable town of Braclaw,
where the scarcity of forage increased the hardships of the season, the Polish
cavalry submitted without a murmur.
 Not so, however, did the Lithuanians. The king had assigned to Paz the town
of Bar, the most comfortable post on the frontiers. Yet that general
The Lithuanians did not approve of the innovation, and taking the law into his own
desert him. hands marched home with his army. This defection was a great
blow to the king. He had begun to invest Kaminiec, and had
opened negotiations for an alliance with Muscovy. He now saw himself obliged to
narrow his plans, and to confine himself to the defensive. The desertion of Paz
aroused the strongest indignation in Poland, and he was forced to ask the king’s
pardon; but he could not now repair the mischief. His disbanded troops were
amusing themselves with pillaging their own country,[61] and there was no
chance at present of rallying them round their standards.
The winter passed without any important success; and early in
Campaign of April another large Turkish army, commanded by Ibrahim Pacha,
1675.
[62] nicknamed “Schischman” from his enormous bulk, advanced
into Volhynia. John hastily quitted the Ukraine and disposed his small forces for
the defence of Russia in a vast arc, of which Leopol was the centre. So
completely was he outnumbered that his only chance of success seemed to lie in
procuring allies. He continued to treat with the Czar, and received at Leopol with
ostentatious pomp an ambassador from the Sophy of Persia; but he could hope
little from the latter, except the chance of terrifying the Sultan by a supposed
coalition with his Asiatic enemy.
Meanwhile Ibrahim had copied the fault of the preceding year
Lethargy of theby wasting time in small sieges, and it was not till he received a
Poles.
threatening message from Köprili that he began to advance upon
the Polish force covering Leopol, which hardly amounted to 15,000 men. No
exertions on the part of the king could awaken Poland to a sense of its danger.
Servitude had numbed the senses of the peasants, and the nobles were wearied
with the length of the war. Ibrahim seemed unwilling to trust his fortune against
that of Sobieski. Sitting down before Trembowla, a strong fortress in Podolia, he
sent on the Tartar Noureddin with 40,000 men “to bring the king before him dead
or alive.”
It was late in August when this detachment[63]—the flower of
Battle of
Leopol. the Turkish army—arrived at Leopol, and began to burn the
suburbs. The Poles besought the king to retire, and not risk his
life in so deadly a combat. “You would despise me,” said he, “if I were to follow
your advice.” The ground in the vicinity was undulating and covered with
vineyards, and John carefully made his dispositions in order to conceal from the
enemy the smallness of his force. He planted several hills, which he could not
occupy, with the spare lances of his hussars, and concealed squadrons in the
valleys near the point of attack. Then, on the 24th of August, amidst a storm of
snow and hail which beat in the faces of the enemy, he suddenly charged the
infidels at the head of 5,000 cavalry, repeating thrice the name of Jesus. The
impetuous bravery of the Poles spread terror in the Turkish ranks, and before
nightfall the whole force, though at least eight times the number of their
assailants, had fled in disorder. The storm was so unusual for the time of year
that contemporary memoirs speak of it as miraculous; and it appears that this
battle, more than any other, contributed to cause the superstitious fear with which
the Turkish troops subsequently regarded John Sobieski.
Ibrahim was dismayed at the king’s success. He had captured
Siege of the position of Podhaic, but he could not reduce the garrison of
Trembowla.
Trembowla, commanded by Chrasonowski, a man of determined
courage. He now redoubled his assault upon that place, which must have fallen
but for the arrival of John with the Polish army. The king posted his troops to
advantage and prepared for the attack; but during the night (Oct. 6th) Ibrahim
intercepted a letter to the besieged, which informed him that the king in person
was at the head of the Poles. He at once raised the siege, and
Retreat of the without striking a blow retreated precipitately to Kaminiec, and
Turks.
thence across the Danube. John would have pursued him beyond
the outskirts of Podolia, but the Polish vanguard, dreading a winter’s campaign in
the enemy’s country, set fire to the bridges, and compelled their king to suspend
his march.
The whole country clamoured for his return, and the Diet was
Return of the impatient to return thanks to its deliverer. The Vice-chancellor
king.
declared in the Senate that the king moved like a tortoise towards
the throne, but like an eagle towards the enemies of the republic. He was now
ready to gratify the general wish, and returning to Zolkiew received a number of
foreign ambassadors sent to congratulate him upon his election,—among them
Lawrence Hyde, Earl of Rochester,[64] whom Dr. South was attending as
domestic chaplain. The French ambassador solicited John’s alliance against
Brandenburg and the empire, and held out hopes of persuading the Turks to
make peace. But the king deferred all fresh engagements for the present; his
grand aim in life was to save Poland from the Ottoman grasp.
Cracow was, as usual, the scene of the coronation, which was fixed for the 2nd
of February (1676). Two days earlier, according to the Polish
Burial of the two custom, John followed to the grave the body of Michael, and the
last kings.
interest of the ceremony was deepened on this occasion by the
obsequies of Casimir. The ex-king had died three years before, of grief, it was
said, at the fall of Kaminiec.[65] The reigns of the two deceased kings, so fruitful
in misfortunes to Poland, comprised the whole of Sobieski’s wonderful career,
and it was fitting that their royal mourner should be he to whose prowess they
were chiefly indebted for retaining the crown. The coronation took
Coronation. place amid general rejoicings, broken only by a few murmurs
when the crown was set upon the queen’s head. It was not long before she
showed her unfitness to wear it.
 Two days later (February 4th) the Diet met, and was
Diet of 1676. conspicuous for its loyal enthusiasm. The king was entreated not
to lay down the office of Grand General, but he wisely refused a privilege so
invidious, and conferred the post upon his old enemy, Demetrius Wiesnowiesçki.
He displayed the same generous spirit in his other appointments, offering the
primacy to Olzowski, the favourite of Eleanor, and the Grand Marshalate to
Lubomirski, son of his old rival. The brave Jablonowski was rewarded with the
post of Second General. His elevation caused some trouble. The Diet proposed
to make these dignities triennial, which, in the present reign at least, would have
been a salutary enhancement of the royal power; but the queen, out of gratitude
to Jablonowski, worked hard in secret to defeat the proposal. The king, though
he favoured it at heart, appeared neutral; and the project fell through.
John availed himself of the favourable temper of the Diet to take exceptional
measures for the national defence. He proposed a capitation subsidy upon all
alike, clergy as well as laity, and strongly urged the necessity of forming a
permanent infantry. Hitherto this branch of the service had been fixed at one-third
of the regular army (16,000), but it had never reached this standard, and being
composed only of the peasants and poorer nobles, commanded by foreign
officers, its equipment was disgracefully inefficient.[66] The Diet voted that the
army should be raised to 73,000 men, thus augmenting it by 25,000,[67] and that
of these 35,000 should be infantry. No king had ever obtained such concessions
from the nobility, but they were not granted without a violent opposition. The old
expedient was tried of drawing out the Diet, but John defeated it by submitting to
a continuous sitting, and presiding upon the throne for forty consecutive hours.
He was able to announce that the Great Elector had promised him succours, and
that he hoped for an alliance with Muscovy. The Diet did not rise before paying
him the unusual compliment of a decree that all the starosties which he had held
should remain hereditary in his family.[68]
Unfortunately their good resolutions were not carried into effect.
The king fails to
Although the Dietines ratified their proceedings, it was beyond the
levy troops.
king’s power to overcome the inertness and lethargy of the
nobility. The patriotic spirit died out at once when the magic of his personal
influence was withdrawn. Seizing upon a rumour which was industriously raised
by Austria, that the king was treating in secret with the Turks and would use the
money for his own purposes, they refused to pay the subsidy, and threw every
obstacle in his way. John hastily assembled at Leopol those troops which had not
been disbanded; but, although their number is variously stated, some even
placing it as low as 10,000, it probably did not amount to one-half of the force
that the Diet had decreed.
Meanwhile, Köprili had not been idle. He assembled an army of
Armament of 100,000 Turks, to be accompanied by a vast host of Tartars. But
the Turks.
his aim was more pacific than in the former campaigns. He was
beset by the proffered mediation of the European powers, especially of Louis
XIV., who wished to evade his promise of sending armed assistance to Poland.
Moreover, the condition of Asiatic Turkey distracted his attention; his allies, the
Cossacks and the Tartars, inspired him with distrust; and he felt that his fortune
was outshone by the star of John Sobieski. The name of the Polish hero was
such a terror in the Ottoman ranks that threats alone could induce many of the
officers to serve against him. Köprili looked out anxiously for a competent
general. He chose Ibrahim, Pacha of Damascus, called “Shaitan” (Satan), from
his combined bravery and cunning, and gave him instructions to procure an
honourable peace.
Ibrahim secretly hoped to do more than this, for he was
Invasion of confident that he could drive the king to extremities. He pushed
Galicia.
on at once into Galicia and crossed the Dniester, expecting that
John would attack him; but finding that the king lay inactive at Zurawno, a small
town on the left bank, he advanced against him without delay. John called in his
squadrons of horse, which had been harassing the Tartars, and prepared to
improve his position. It had been chosen with admirable judgment. He lay with
the Dniester and the mountains behind it covering his rear, while his left rested
on the town of Zurawno, and his right was protected by woods and marshes. In
front of his lines ran a rapid torrent, called the Swiczza, which was easily
fordable, and offered facilities for the construction of entrenchments. On this task
John employed his whole army, and collected all the provisions within reach.
When the seraskier appeared on the heights in his front, he left his lines and
offered him battle (September 25th); but this was declined, for all the Turkish
troops had not yet come up. Ibrahim, when he had assembled
Siege of them, formed them into a vast arc, including the town of Zurawno,
Zurawno.
the Polish army, and the wood on its right, with each of his wings
resting on the river. He then commenced a regular siege. His artillery was
splendidly handled; and his miners rapidly approached the Polish entrenchments.
John at once employed counter-mines, but the experience of the Turks in Candia
gave them a vast superiority. The king was anxious to bring on a general action,
and in a skirmish on the 29th of September the Poles had the advantage, but
they lost heavily. John’s situation was becoming desperate; the Tartars who
commanded the river prevented the arrival of provisions by that route; and the
Turkish artillery made frightful havoc in his ranks.
The liveliest alarm prevailed in Poland. The Senate called out
Proposals of the Pospolite and placed Prince Radziwill at its head; but the
peace.
assembling of such a body was necessarily slow. Meantime
another engagement took place at Zurawno (October 8th), in which 2,000 Turks
were slain; but John failed to break through the enemy’s lines, and was once
nearly surrounded and cut off from his men by a body of janissaries. When
however the siege had lasted nearly twenty days, the Tartan khan, whose
dominion was menaced by the Muscovites,[69] pressed Ibrahim to conclude a