In March 2014, Fyffes agreed to merge with Chiquita to form the world`s largest banana trader.  In October of this year, however, Fyffes exercised its right to terminate the transaction agreement with Chiquita.  The Safra and Cutrale families assert that the proposal offers more value than Chiquita`s merger agreement with the Dublin Fyffes and that there are no regulatory obstacles.” Fyffes shows a certain willingness to dialogue and opens up the possibility of entering into binding agreements and negotiating a collective agreement in the new melon production company being created. I cannot accept that view from the COA. Of course, it is necessary to consider the AC in its entire economic context in order to determine the essential nature of the contract it embodies, but in this case, both the practical economic considerations and the language used by the parties clearly indicate that the ACC is a promotional contract. This was a new undertaking between Fyffes and REL, which had been the subject of extensive discussion and negotiation and, although the parties were not sure how certain aspects of the transaction would work in practice, it was not in the interest of any of the parties that the 188 agreement be defined less precisely than necessary. A rather nebulous agreement proposed by Mr. Young would be, from the point of view of one of the two parties, a highly unlikely commercial vehicle. However, there is no doubt about the language of the COA.
Although inconclusive, the agreement is referred to as the charter contract, which is a recognized maritime agreement and is, in this context, referred to as “owner, owner or operator” and Fyffes “charterer” under section 1. Section 2A is in a language that reflects the charterer`s usual obligations to load, transport and unload cargo, but the most instructive is C. 16, which refers to the agreement as a “private transport contract.” Many other indications throughout the agreement point to the same, and the fact that the Freight Transportation Act 1971 was incorporated into existing co-reference measures based the conclusion that the parties considered themselves a contract for which the provisions of the law would be relevant. In fact, there is nothing in the language of the treaty or its background that supports Mr. Young`s assertion. d) One or three trips? The second point is that, in a case such as the one where the vessel was ordered to three loading ports, there were three separate trips for the purposes of the AC. The essential nature of the services provided under the AC is found in cll. 1, 2A, 2B and 3.
These clauses indicate that vessels owned by REL or operated by REL as part of the on-time chartering will travel to Central America, where they will load cargoes at one or more ports and transport them to Portsmouth or Zeebrugge. This suggests that the parties considered the entire route from the beginning of the first loading port approach to the completion of the unloading in the final unloading port as a single route for the purposes of this contract, a view reinforced by the cl indication.