2015年10月22日，英国上诉法院决定对同年7月14日商业法院的裁决维持原判。即，如果买卖合同规定了付款信用期和所有权保留条款，以及明示(或暗示)在付款信用期内消耗物品的权利，那么，这份合同不属于英国《1979年货物买卖法》范畴的销售合同。目前看来，至少规定在付款信用期内消耗燃油的合同不属于《1979年货物买卖法》范畴。
需要注意的是，宝运石油案件仅仅是基于英国法，决定燃油合同下燃油所有权是否转移的问题。英国上诉法院认为燃油所有权没有转移，本案所涉的合同只是一份供货协议，船东获得许可，消耗供给的燃油。
详细信息请参阅附件。
Updates on OW Bunkers – Res Cogitans
In a judgment handed down on 22 October 2015, the Court of Appeal has upheld the Commercial Court decision of 14 July 2015 that, a contract for the sale of goods, where there is a credit period and a retention of title (ROT) clause, coupled with an express (or even implied) right to consume the goods during the credit period, is not a contract of sale within the scope of the Sale of Goods Act 1979, at least so far as bunkers are consumed during the credit period.
It is important to note that the case only deals with English law position on whether the bunker contract was intended to transfer property and title in bunkers. The appeal court decided it was not – it was a supply agreement, granting owners the license to consume the bunkers supplied.
See attached file: ALCO20150044 Updates on OW Bunkers – Res Cogitans.pdf
