Lloyd's Maritime and Commercial Law Quarterly
DEEMED FULFILMENT AGAIN
Robert Stevens*
King Crude Carriers v Ridgebury November
The decision of the Court of Appeal in King Crude Carriers SA v Ridgebury November LCC
1 has been the subject of an excellent note and discussion in this Quarterly already.2 The purpose of this additional comment is to suggest a more straightforward way of reaching the same result, that was not argued before the court, that more readily reconciles the relevant authorities, and does not rely upon a fiction.
As will be recalled, the case concerned the purchase of three ships. The buyers were to pay a deposit of 10 per cent of the purchase price. In the first instance this deposit was to be paid to a solicitors’ firm who would hold it in an escrow account. The parties were to provide the firm with the necessary documentation to open the account.
The buyers failed to provide the necessary documentation to enable the firm to confirm that the accounts were open. The sellers brought an action to recover the deposit as a debt. The buyers argued that there was no entitlement to the deposit unless and until the escrow account was opened, which had not occurred, and so the only claim available was one
* Herbert Smith Freehills Professor of English Private Law, Fellow of Lady Margaret Hall, University of Oxford.
1. [2024] EWCA Civ 719; [2024] 2 Lloyd's Rep 140.
2. A Kennedy and H Morton [2025] LMCLQ 24. See also J English (2025) 141 LQR 48.
Case and comment
245