在杨先生《造船合约》一书P280页左右关于《不可抗力事件下允许延长交船日期》一章中有一个案例：“该新加坡船厂（新建船）接受了上述苛刻条文的严重后果就是被船东在建造/改装的中途中断合 约，并且面对一个 2.5 亿英镑的巨大损失索赔。”船厂认为合约中The OWNERS shall have the right, without prejudice to any of its other rights or remedies under, or in, or arising from, or in connection with the CONTRACT or at law, by giving NOTICE to the BUILDER to terminate the CONTRACT if the BUILDER: -- …
(e) fails, neglects, refuses or is unable during the course of the WORK to provide sufficient materials, equipment, services or labour to perform the WORK at the quality specified and at a progress rate deemed sufficient by the OWNERS to provide a reasonable assurance that the WORK shall be completed in accordance with the CONTRACT provisions.”的约定，船东可以取消合同，必须是在船厂的违约十分严重的情况下，船厂依赖的判例是“The “Antaios” (No. 2) (1984) 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 235，判是在 1946 年纽约土产标准格式第 5 条一句中可让船东撤船的“any breach”指的是毁约性的违约 （repudiatory breach），而不是一些可以只是轻微的违约。”
也就是说在这个案例中，船厂认为只有在自己严重违约的情况下，船东才可以取消合同。
“但少数的意见（Bruce Harris 先生）去解释该合约，认为船厂的违约只需要不是“极轻微”（de minimis），有一定 的重要性，就已经足够。上诉去了法院，Tuckey 大法官支持 Harris 先生的看法，说：
“Article 37 does not seek to characterize the acts of default which justify termination. The opening words make it clear that its provisions are without prejudice to owners’ other rights at law. Those rights would of course include a right to terminate for repudiatory breach. So the clause must be treated as a free-standing code which provides for termination in the situations specified.
Mr Harris said in para. 3 of his dissenting view that there can be no presumption that any default by the builder under art 37 must in effect be repudiatory. I agree with that conclusion. This conclusion is cased upon the wording of art. 37.1 itself, and need not be derived from a detailed analysis of each of its subparagraphs. Looking at those provisions generally it seems to me that some contemplate situations which would be considered repudiatory and some would not.”
