My Law Tutor

Hong Kong Fir Shipping Ltd v Kisen Kaisha – 1962

March 05, 2024
Micheal James

Jurisdiction / Tag(s): UK Law

Introduction to Hong Kong Fir Shipping Ltd v Kisen Kaisha:

Hong Kong Fir Shipping Ltd v Kawasaki Kisen Kaisha (1962) dives into the murky waters of breach of contract remedies, introducing the groundbreaking concept of innominate terms. This case explores the question: when a party breaches a contractual term, does it automatically sink the entire agreement, or are there shades of gray in legal responses?

Facts of the Case:

  • Hong Kong Fir Shipping (charterers) hired the “Hongkong Fir” from Kawasaki Kisen Kaisha (owners) for a two-year charter.
  • Clause 1 obligated the owners to deliver a “seaworthy” vessel, and Clause 3 required them to maintain its good condition.
  • Upon delivery, the vessel’s machinery, though “reasonably good,” required constant maintenance due to age.
  • The inefficient chief engineer exacerbated the situation, leading to numerous breakdowns and delays.
  • Claiming a breach of seaworthiness, the charterers repudiated the contract and sought damages.


  1. Breach & Repudiation: Did the owners’ failure to provide a perfectly seaworthy vessel constitute a fundamental breach justifying automatic termination (repudiation)?
  2. Severity and Remedies: How should the court determine the severity of a breach and its consequences for the contract?
  3. Innominate Terms: A New Anchor? Does the concept of innominate terms offer a more flexible approach to breach of contract remedies, balancing the interests of both parties?


The Court of Appeal charted a new course:

  • The seaworthiness obligation, while important, did not reach the level of a fundamental term, as delays did not render the vessel totally unfit for its purpose.
  • The breach was deemed an innominate term, meaning its consequences depended on the severity of the breach and its impact on the contract’s overall performance.
  • In this case, the delays, although serious, did not amount to a frustration of the contract, and repudiation was not justified.

Significance of the Case:

This case established the concept of innominate terms as a middle ground between:

  • Conditions: Breach leads to automatic termination.
  • Warranties: Breach leads only to damages.


  • Flexible Remedies: Innominate terms allow tailoring remedies to the specific breach, ensuring fairer outcomes.
  • Proportionality Matters: Minor breaches shouldn’t sink valuable agreements.
  • Balancing Interests: Protects innocent parties from excessive consequences while upholding contractual obligations.

Additional Points:

  • Analyze arguments from dissenting judges for a broader understanding.
  • Discuss potential criticisms of the innominate term concept.
  • Explore the evolution of contract law and the continued relevance of this case.


Hong Kong Fir v Kawasaki Kisen Kaisha (1962) stands tall as a landmark, navigating the complexities of breach of contract with the innovative concept of innominate terms. It reminds us that legal responses should be proportional, balancing fairness with contractual obligations. This case continues to guide courts and parties in navigating the intricate world of contractual breaches and their consequences.

Why Choose Us:

Professional Law Exam Revision Services offer invaluable support to law students preparing for their examinations. Our services provide comprehensive review materials, practice questions, and expert guidance tailored to specific exam formats and subjects. By leveraging the expertise of seasoned legal professionals, students can gain insights into complex legal concepts, refine their understanding of key topics, and improve their exam-taking strategies. With access to structured study plans and personalized feedback, students can approach their exams with confidence and maximize their chances of success. Professional Law Exam Revision Services are indispensable resources for aspiring lawyers striving to excel in their academic pursuits.

Cite This Work

Select a referencing style to export a reference for this article:

All Answers ltd, 'Hong Kong Fir Shipping Ltd v Kisen Kaisha – 1962' (, ) <> accessed 24 July 2024
My, Law, Tutor. ( ). Hong Kong Fir Shipping Ltd v Kisen Kaisha – 1962. Retrieved from
"Hong Kong Fir Shipping Ltd v Kisen Kaisha – 1962." . All Answers Ltd. 07 2024 <>.
"Hong Kong Fir Shipping Ltd v Kisen Kaisha – 1962." MyLawTutor., . Web. 24 July 2024. <>.
MyLawTutor. . Hong Kong Fir Shipping Ltd v Kisen Kaisha – 1962. [online]. Available from: [Accessed 24 July 2024].
MyLawTutor. Hong Kong Fir Shipping Ltd v Kisen Kaisha – 1962 [Internet]. . [Accessed 24 July 2024]; Available from:
<ref>{{cite web|last=Tutor |first=MyLaw |url= |title=Hong Kong Fir Shipping Ltd v Kisen Kaisha – 1962 | |date= |accessdate=24 July 2024 |location=UK, USA}}</ref>

Related Cases

Bell v Lever Bros – 1932

UK Law . Last modified: July 20, 2024

Introduction to Bell v Lever Bros – 1932 In the bustling English business landscape of 1932, a seemingly straightforward case of corporate misconduct took an unexpected turn, raising profound questions about contracts, mistakes, and the very foundations of agreement. Bell v Lever Bros, decided in the House of Lords, transcended the confines of a singular […]

Nettleship v Weston 1971

UK Law . Last modified: December 8, 2023

Case Introduction Nettleship v Weston 1971 is a significant English case in negligence law. It involves a driving lesson where Mrs. Weston, a learner driver, lost control, causing damage. Mrs. Nettleship, the instructor, was guiding Mrs. Weston during the lesson. The case addresses duty of care and standard of care in negligence cases. It questions […]

Lefkowitz v Great Minneapolis Surplus Store

UK Law . Last modified: March 18, 2024

Introduction to Lefkowitz v Great Minneapolis Surplus Store: Lefkowitz v Great Minneapolis Surplus Store stands as a seminal case within the realm of contract law, showcasing the intricacies of contractual agreements and the obligations they entail. This case, which unfolded in a specific jurisdiction, involved Lefkowitz as the plaintiff and Great Minneapolis Surplus Store as […]

Howard Marine v Ogden – 1978 QB 574

UK Law . Last modified: March 7, 2024

Introduction to Howard Marine v Ogden: Howard Marine v Ogden – 1978 QB 574 is a seminal case in legal jurisprudence, addressing both contract and tort law principles. This case study delves into the background, legal issues, arguments presented, procedural history, analysis, decision, and implications of this significant litigation. By examining the intricacies of contractual […]

Flaminio Costa v ENEL – 1964

UK Law . Last modified: July 20, 2024

Introduction to Flaminio Costa v ENEL: Flaminio Costa v ENEL – 1964 is a landmark case in European Union (EU) law that established the supremacy of EU law over national law. This case study explores the background, legal issues, court proceedings, and implications of the ruling in shaping the legal framework of the EU. Background […]

Curley v Parkes [2005]

UK Law . Last modified: July 20, 2024

Introduction to Curley v Parkes [2005] Curley v Parkes [2005] is a notable legal case that revolves around a dispute between Mr. Curley, the plaintiff, and Mr. Parkes, the defendant. The case addresses significant legal issues concerning property rights and contractual obligations, making it an essential study in contract law jurisprudence. Background The dispute between […]

go to top