The case of Zinc Corporation, Ltd. v. Hirsch [1916,



1 K.B. 541] shows that a stipulation as to suspension cn ( ,



Recent

of deliveries of certain zinc concentrates is not the
same thing as a stipulation for the suspension of the gf^!
whole contract. In this case the contract was held
to be dissolved as it would have involved commercial Pro ^ine
intercourse with the enemy. (The case is cited more for sus -

„ ., pension

fully at p. 20, ante.) only.
Another case is that of Instone & Co., Ltd. v. Speed-
ing Marshall & Co. [1915, 32 T.L.R. 202]. This
came before the Courts on a special case stated by
an Umpire. The plaintiffs in July 1914 contracted
to buy and the defendants agreed to deliver 1500
tons monthly of D.C.B. coal during 1915 at specified
prices f.o.b., Blyth. The contract contained the
following clause : —

" In case of war, force majeure, strikes, restrictions
of output ... or other hindrances intervening or
interfering or affecting delivery or chartering or strikes
at port of destination which may interfere with the
discharging, sellers to have the option to suspend
partly or entirely any deliveries under this contract."

The defendants failed to deliver during April to
December 1915, and the plaintiffs bought against
them at considerably enhanced prices, and claimed
the differences from the defendants. The defendants
contended that the clause relieved them and gave
them the right to suspend delivery, (1) because there
was an unusual rise in price altogether abnormal,
(2) the output from the collieries producing D.C.B.
coal was reduced owing to the number of miners who



144 The Law of War and Contract

contracts had enlisted, and (3) some colliers would not contract
clauses." ahead and none except upon extremely hard terms.
