Please do NOT purchase if you have not read this guide (Click Here)
INTERNATIONAL TRADE LAW PART I ONLY PREVIEW
- The Bill confers certain rights and Liability: like the right to sue.
- The Carrier is only under an obligation to deliver goods against the presentation of the BOL. Where he delivers to a person who doesn’t present the BOL, he would be liable except liability is excluded by agreement or the receiver is entitled to possession of the goods.
Frauds and BOL: Since the bills are issued in duplicates what happens when a fraudster obtains a copy of the bill and presents it to receive the goods? In Glyn Mills V East West India Dock Co, the court held that there was no liability for mis-delivery once the BOL was presented. In this case, the warehouseman was not liable since he delivered upon the presentation of the BOL.
DUTIES AND EXCLUSIONS:
For the Shipowner:
:: To provide a seaworthy ship: which is fit for the voyage to be undertaken. In The Amstelslot where the vessel broke down due to gear failure, the court held that the ship owner was negligent. In The Muncaster Castle cases of tinned ox tongues were shipped under bills of lading from Sydney to London. On discharge, the cases were found to be damaged by sea water. It was found that defective storm valve covers had let the sea water enter into the hold. The ship owner argued that he employed reputable ship repairers to inspect and maintain the ship. Therefore the repairers should be held liable since they were independent contractors. Court still held that he did not exercise due diligence. Additionally, the court inThe Thorsa, noted that the vessel must be capable of carrying the particular cargo. Same noted in Reed V Page. In Hamilton V Pandorf, the goods are destroyed because of rats on board a ship. Held that the duty to provide a sea worthy ship was breached.
:: To proceed with due dispatch: In Freeman V Taylor, delay of seven weeks was regarded as sufficient to frustrate the commercial purpose of the contract.
:: To transport to agreed destination without deviation. Deviation may be allowed where such is necessary to save life and property, to undertake necessary repairs on the ship and other deserving circumstances. In Morrison V Shaw Savill the ship deviated from the contract route.
:: Duty of Care (both in navigation and protection of the goods): to “use due care and skill in navigating the vessel and carrying the goods”–Lord Mcnaghten in The Xantho. Willes J in Notara V Henderson said: the shipowner is “to take reasonable care of the goods entrusted to him… to preserve them on board”… and arrest loss in damaging situations. In Lennard’s Carrying V Asiatic Petroleum, the court noted that the employer company can be liable for its employee’s (or agent’s) negligence where the agent can be said to be the directing mind or brain of the company. A similar position was followed in The Marion
 Most of these conditions are also applicable for sea charter parties.
  1 Lloyd’s Rep 223.
 (1887) 12 App Cas 518.
 In The Olympias, the deviation was to save another ship (The Arion) which was in distress.
  AC 705.
  2 All ER 243.
….. THIS IS A PREVIEW ONLY, KINDLY DOWNLOAD THE FULL PDF. THANK YOU.