Transatlantic Financing Corporation v. United States

United States Court of Appeals District of Columbia Circuit
363 F.2d 312 (1966)

ELI5:

Rule of Law:

A party's performance under a contract is not excused under the doctrine of commercial impracticability simply because an unforeseen event makes the agreed-upon performance more difficult or expensive. For the doctrine to apply, the contingency must render performance so vitally different from what was reasonably contemplated that it is commercially senseless to enforce the contract.

Facts:

On July 26, 1956, the Government of Egypt nationalized the Suez Canal, creating international tensions.
On October 2, 1956, Transatlantic Financing Corporation entered into a voyage charter contract with the United States to ship a full cargo of wheat from a U.S. Gulf port to Iran.
The contract specified the cargo and destinations but did not stipulate the route of the voyage.
The usual and customary sea route for such a voyage at the time was through the Suez Canal.
On October 27, 1956, Transatlantic's ship, the SS CHRISTOS, departed from Galveston, Texas, on a course planned to take it through the Suez Canal.
On November 2, 1956, after the ship had sailed, the Egyptian government closed the Suez Canal to all traffic following an international conflict.
To complete the delivery, Transatlantic redirected the SS CHRISTOS around the Cape of Good Hope, adding approximately 3,000 miles and significant expense to the 10,000-mile voyage.
The ship successfully delivered the wheat to Iran on December 30, 1956.

Procedural Posture:

Transatlantic Financing Corporation filed a libel (a suit in admiralty law) against the United States in a federal District Court.
The District Court dismissed Transatlantic's libel.
Transatlantic, as the appellant, appealed the dismissal to the United States Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit.

Premium Content

Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief

You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture

Issue:

Does the unexpected closure of the Suez Canal, which forces a carrier to take a longer and more expensive alternative route, render performance of a voyage charter contract commercially impracticable, thereby entitling the carrier to additional compensation?

Opinions:

Majority - J. Skelly Wright

No. The closure of the Suez Canal did not render the contract commercially impracticable. The doctrine of impossibility requires more than just an increase in cost to excuse performance. The court established a three-part test to determine if performance is excused: 1) a contingency—something unexpected—must have occurred; 2) the risk of the unexpected occurrence must not have been allocated by agreement or custom; and 3) the occurrence of the contingency must have rendered performance commercially impracticable. Here, while the closure of the Canal was an unexpected contingency (satisfying the first prong), the court found the risk was not fully allocated but that Transatlantic, aware of the political instability, assumed some degree of abnormal risk. Most importantly, performance was not rendered commercially impracticable (failing the third prong). The goods were not harmed by the longer voyage, the ship was capable of the journey, and the additional cost of approximately $44,000 on a $306,000 contract (an increase of about 14%) was not so extreme as to alter the essential nature of the performance. Therefore, the mere increase in expense did not excuse Transatlantic from performing at the contract price.

Analysis:

This case is a foundational decision in modern contract law, establishing a clear analytical framework for the defense of commercial impracticability. It moved legal analysis away from vague notions of "implied conditions" toward a structured, three-part test focusing on contingency, risk allocation, and the degree of impracticability. The ruling sets a high bar for invoking the doctrine, clarifying that increased cost alone, even if substantial, is insufficient to excuse performance, particularly when the contingency was arguably foreseeable. This precedent reinforces the principle of contract enforcement and requires parties to either explicitly allocate risks of disruptive events in their contracts or bear the financial consequences of those risks.

Gunnerbot

AI-powered case assistant

Loaded: Transatlantic Financing Corporation v. United States (1966)

Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"