Scribd
Upload
85 views3 pages

PDF 1 Godard V Gray

The French plaintiffs sued the English defendants in a French court over a charter agreement made in England. The French court treated a penalty clause as fixing liquidated damages and awarded judgment to the plaintiffs. On appeal, the amount was reduced to one voyage. English law would not treat such a clause as an absolute limit and damages beyond it could be awarded if unjust. However, English law was not brought to the attention of the French court. The issue is whether there is a bar to enforcing the French judgment in an English court. English courts will enforce foreign judgments as a legal obligation, but allow the defendant to challenge jurisdiction or claim the judgment was obtained by fraud.

Uploaded by

Sandra Domingo
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
85 views3 pages

PDF 1 Godard V Gray

The French plaintiffs sued the English defendants in a French court over a charter agreement made in England. The French court treated a penalty clause as fixing liquidated damages and awarded judgment to the plaintiffs. On appeal, the amount was reduced to one voyage. English law would not treat such a clause as an absolute limit and damages beyond it could be awarded if unjust. However, English law was not brought to the attention of the French court. The issue is whether there is a bar to enforcing the French judgment in an English court. English courts will enforce foreign judgments as a legal obligation, but allow the defendant to challenge jurisdiction or claim the judgment was obtained by fraud.

Uploaded by

Sandra Domingo
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 3

Godard v.

Gray (1870)
Facts:
• Plaintifs Godard are Frenchmen who sued deendants who
are Englishmen on a charter party made at Sunderland.
•  This charter agreement contained a clause: “Penalty or non-
perormance o this agreement estimated amount o reight.!
•  The French court treated this clause as "#ing the amount o
li$uidated damages and rendered %udgment against
deendants
or the reight on & 'oyages.
• (n appeal the court reduced the amount to one 'oyage.
• )owe'er in English *aw had the passage +een +rought to
notice o the French tri+unal it would ha'e ,nown that in an
English charter-party such a clause is not the a+solute limit o
damages on either side the other party may ground his action
in

other clauses and may reco'er damages +eyond the amount


o the penalty i in %ustice they shall ound to e#ceed it.
• ut such was not +rought to the notice o the French
tri+unal that according to the interpretation put +y the
English law on such contract a penal clause o this sort was
in act idle and
inoperati'e.
•  it had +een they would ha'e interpreted the English
contract made in England according to English construction.
Issue/s: 

/(0 there is a +ar to the action +rought in England to enorce


that %udgment10(

Held:
  t is not an admitted principle o the law o nations that a State is
+ound to enorce within its territories the %udgment o a oreign
tri+unal. Se'eral o the continental nations1including France1
do not enorce the %udgments o other countries unless there
are
reciprocal treaties to that efect.
  n England which is go'erned +y common law %udgments are
enorced not +y 'irtue o a treaty +ut +ecause o a principle in
the case o Williams v. Jones which state that:
  “/here a court o competent %urisdiction has ad%udicated a
certain sum to +e due rom one person to another a legal
o+ligation arises to pay the sum on which an action o de+t to
enorce the %udgment may +e maintained. t is in this way that
the %udgments o oreign and colonial courts are supported
and
enorced.!
n order or the deendant to show that the court which
pronounced the %udgment had no %urisdiction to pronounce it
either +ecause they e#ceeded the %urisdiction gi'en to them +y
oreign law or +ecause he the deendant was not su+%ect to
that %urisdiction and oreign %udgment must +e e#amina+le.
2eendant may also show that the %udgment was o+tained +y
the raud o the plaintif or that would show that the deendant
was e#cused rom the perormance o the o+ligation.
• n English courts we enorce a legal o+ligation and we admit
any deense which shows that there is no legal o+ligation or a
legal e#cuse or not ul"lling it +ut in no case that we ,now o
is it easily pro'ed and re%ected it would gi'e the court much
trou+le to in'estigate it.

You might also like

pFad - Phonifier reborn

Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.

Note: This service is not intended for secure transactions such as banking, social media, email, or purchasing. Use at your own risk. We assume no liability whatsoever for broken pages.


Alternative Proxies:

Alternative Proxy

pFad Proxy

pFad v3 Proxy

pFad v4 Proxy