The Moorcock [1889]

Court: Court of Appeal

Facts: The owners of The Moorcock (C) docked the ship at a wharf owned by D to unload cargo. While docked, the ship was damaged by hitting a ridge when the tide went down. The ship owner argued that there should be an implied term that D was responsible for ensuring the ship’s safety while at the wharf. The wharf owners argued that no such provision was made in the contract.

Issue: Whether the contract should include an implied term holding the wharf owners responsible for ensuring the ship's safety.

Held: The court implied a term into the contract requiring the wharf owners to take reasonable steps to ascertain the safety of the riverbed, making them liable for the ship’s damage. The term was necessary to give the contract "business efficacy"—ensuring the contract made practical commercial sense.

Key Judicial Statement: Bowen LJ: Terms can be implied into a contract if they are necessary and obvious to make the contract work effectively, but not simply because they are desirable or reasonable.

💡 Leveluplaw: The Moorcock case established the business efficacy test for implied terms in contracts. If a term is crucial for a contract to function as the parties intended, the courts may imply it—even if it wasn’t explicitly stated.