I skip "million" because the question would be the same without. I intentionally don't quote judgement, because the book beneath doesn't say what the value of the vessel is now. But don't we need to know the value of the current vessel to calculate if it is worth repairing? How do we prove that regardless of the current cost of the vessel, the vessel not worth repair? 

McKendrick. [*Contract Law: Text, Cases, and Materials* (2018 8 ed)](https://www.amazon.co.uk/Contract-Law-Text-Cases-Materials/dp/019880816X/ref=dp_ob_title_bk). p. 795.

> 
>         In *Attica Sea Carriers Corporation v. Ferrostaal Poseidon Bulk Reederei GmbH (The
>  Puerto Buitrago)* [1976] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 250 charterers chartered a vessel from shipowners
>  for 17 months. After six months the vessel required substantial repairs. **The cost of these
>  repairs was some \$2 million. But the vessel was not worth repairing because, even when it
>  was fully repaired, it would be worth only \$1 million.** In these circumstances the charterers
>  terminated the charter hire and re- delivered the vessel. The charterers admitted liability for
>  \$400,000 of the repairs but the shipowners refused to accept the re- delivery of the vessel,
>  contending that the charterers were liable under the contract to pay the hire until the repairs
>  had been carried out. The Court of Appeal rejected the shipowner’s argument, holding
>  that the obligation to repair the vessel was not a condition precedent to the entitlement of
>  the charterer to redeliver the vessel. It was therefore not necessary for the Court of Appeal
>  to decide whether or not the shipowners were entitled to recover the hire until such time
>  as the repairs were done. But the court nevertheless gave brief consideration to the issue. It
>  was held that *White & Carter* was distinguishable. Lord Denning MR expressed himself in
>  characteristically robust terms.
> 
> 
> 

I skip rest.