Earn Line S. S. Co. v. Sutherland S. S. Co. Case Brief
Complete case briefs with LSD+
Every LSD.Law brief pairs a full IRAC analysis with opinion summaries at three levels of depth, written by a team of Harvard Law and MIT graduates - a quick synopsis when you are pressed for time, the complete reasoning when you need to go deep.
Adaptive Case Views
Toggle between Flash, Standard, and Expanded. Get what you need, when you need it.
Exam-Ready IRAC Format
We deliver the precise structure professors look for in exam answers.
Complex Cases, Clarified
We break down dense legal reasoning into something digestible, helping you grasp core concepts.
Case Brief Summary & Legal Analysis
tl;dr: A ship owner was excused from a charter contract after the British government requisitioned the vessel for war. The court held the government’s indefinite seizure frustrated the commercial purpose of the contract, terminating it without breach.
Legal Significance: Establishes that a government requisition of a vessel for an indefinite period that will likely outlast the contract term constitutes a frustration of purpose, dissolving the contract immediately and excusing the parties from further performance.
Earn Line S. S. Co. v. Sutherland S. S. Co. Law School Study Guide
Use this case brief structure for your own legal analysis. Focus on the IRAC methodology to excel in law school exams and cold calls.
Case Facts & Court Holding
Key Facts & Case Background
Sutherland S. S. Co. (“Sutherland”), a British company, owned the ship Claveresk, which it time-chartered to Earn Line S. S. Co. (“Earn Line”). The charter party contained a “restraint of princes” clause, which excused non-performance due to governmental acts. On February 10, 1917, while the charter was in effect, the British Admiralty issued an order to Sutherland in England, requisitioning the Claveresk for war service for an indefinite period. At the time, the ship was in Cuban waters. Sutherland complied with the order and turned the vessel over to the Admiralty. The government’s use of the ship was certain to, and ultimately did, extend far beyond the remaining term of the charter. Earn Line sued Sutherland for breach of contract, alleging that Sutherland had repudiated the charter party. Sutherland defended on the grounds that its compliance with the government order was excused under the “restraint of princes” clause and, more fundamentally, that the requisition had frustrated the commercial purpose of the contract, thereby terminating it entirely.
Court Holding & Legal Precedent
Issue: Does a government’s indefinite requisition of a chartered vessel, which is certain to outlast the charter term, constitute a frustration of the commercial adventure that dissolves the contract and excuses the owner from performance?
Yes. The British government’s requisition of the vessel for an indefinite period Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliqu
IRAC Legal Analysis
About IRAC analysis
IRAC (Issue, Rule, Analysis, Conclusion) is the structure professors expect in exam answers. Each LSD.Law brief states the issue, the governing rule with citations, the court's application of that rule, and the conclusion - the same reasoning pattern you will use on exams and in practice.
Legal Issue
Does a government’s indefinite requisition of a chartered vessel, which is certain to outlast the charter term, constitute a frustration of the commercial adventure that dissolves the contract and excuses the owner from performance?
Conclusion
This case is a key authority for applying the doctrine of frustration Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip
Legal Rule
A contract is dissolved under the doctrine of frustration when a supervening Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehend
Legal Analysis
The court first determined that the government's order to the owner was Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deser
Flash-to-Full Case Opinions
Flash Summary
- A government order to a shipowner qualifies as a “restraint of