868 [HOUSE OF LORDS.]
H. L. (E.)* COMPANIA NAVIERA AEOLUS S.A. . . . APPELLANTS;
1962 AND
July 23 24; UNION OF INDIA . . . . . . . . . . . . . RESPONDENTS.
Oct. 8.
[...]
899
This may not be covered under part 1.Lay days are the days which parties have stipulated for the loading or discharge of the cargo, and if they are exceeded the charterers are in breach; demurrage is the agreed damages to be paid for delay if the ship is delayed in loading or discharging beyond the agreed period. The respondents therefore have to bring themselves within the exception in order to prevent demurrage arising. At best for them part 3 of the " Centrocon " clause is ambiguous, but an ambiguous clause is no protection. " If a " party wishes to exclude the ordinary consequences that would " flow in law from the contract that he is making he must do so in "clear terms " (Szymonowski & Co. v. Beck & Co.,21 Scrutton L.J.). The respondents have failed, in my opinion, to show that upon a proper construction of the clause they are protected.[...]