ABSTRACT
The purchasers subsequently alleged that a binding agreement for the sale of the vessel had been concluded during the course of their telephone discussions with the sellers on 4 May. The sellers denied this allegation, contending that an agreement had not been reached in the absence of (i) a consensus between the parties as to the nature and extent of the outstanding works and (ii) execution of a memorandum of agreement as envisaged in paragraph 11 of the purchasers’ 3 May telex.
