Page:Harvard Law Review Volume 32.djvu/828

792 792 HARVARD LAW REVIEW to the charter party ,^ thus giving to the act of the government the same effect which would be given to an act of God which should bring about a similar "frustration of the adventure," to use the common English term. A ship may, however, be chartered for a period of months or years rather than for a particular voyage. In such a case the use of the ship by the government would not necessarily be inconsistent with the object of the charter] party any more than a temporary injury to the ship from perils of the sea would be. A majority of the House of Lords has accordingly held that the requisitioning of a ship which was under a charter having several years to run did not terminate the charter.^ In view of the length of the war and the fact that requisitioned ships were seldom returned to their owners during the continuance of hostilities, the result reached in this case has not escaped criticism,^ and in at least one case in- volving a time charter the English court of appeal has found it possible to distinguish rather than to follow it.^ Ill Compulsory Government Orders for Production Instead of taking possession of the property which is the subject matter of the contract, the government might order the owner to make some use of the property, or of some other property neces- sary to the performance of the contract, which use would render such performance impossible. Thus Congress conferred upon the President the power to place with a manufacturer or other pro- ducer compulsory orders for war material, and required that such orders be given precedence over all other business.^ If the government placed such an order with a manufacturer for a quantity of goods equal to the entire output of his factory, the effect of such order would be to render it impossible for him to perform any private contract he might have made which pro- ^ See cases, cited infra, in connection with time charters. , ^ F. A. Tamplin S. S. Co. v. Anglo-Mexican Co., [1916] 2 A. C. 119. '' See 34 Law Quart. Rev. 126. ' Countess of Warwick S. S. Co. v. Le Nickel Societe Anonyme, [1918] i K. B. 372. 9 See National Defense Act of June 3, 1916, 39 Stat, at L., c. 134, §§ 120, 166. Naval Appropriations Act of March 4, 1917, 39 Stat, at L., c. 180, 1168; General Deficiency Act of June 15, 1917 [Public — No. 23 — 65th Congress (H. R. 3971)]; Emergency Shipping Fund provisions.