PYRENE CO., LTD. V. SCINDIA STEAM NAVIGATION CO., LTD QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION [1954] 2 QB 402, [1954] 2 All ER 158, [1954] 2 WLR 1005, [1954] 1 Lloyd's Rep 321 HEARING-DATES: 15, 16, 17 March, 14 April 1954 HEADNOTE: By the Carriage of Goods by Sea Act, 1924 , Schedule, Article I (b): "'Contract of carriage' applies only to contracts of carriage covered by a bill of lading... In so far as such document relates to the carriage of goods by sea, including any bill of lading... Issued under or pursuant to a charter party from the moment at which such bill of lading... Regulates the relations between a carrier and a holder of the same". By Article I (e): "'Carriage of goods' covers the period from the time when the goods are loaded on to the time when they are discharged from the ship", and by Article II: "... Under every contract of carriage of goods by sea the carrier in relation to the loading, handling, stowage, carriage, custody, care, and discharge of such goods, shall be subject to the responsibilities and liabilities, and entitled to the rights and immunities hereinafter set forth". In August, 1948, the plaintiffs entered into a contract with the Government of India, through a department of the government ("I.S.D.") by which they agreed to sell to the Indian government a number of airfield crash tenders, F.O.B. London. All arrangements for the carriage of the goods were made by I.S.D. through their agents, who were also freight brokers for the plaintiffs and nominated one of the defendants' ships for loading under the contract. In April, 1951, the plaintiffs, in accordance with instructions issued by I.S.D., delivered one of the tenders to the Port of London for loading on board the ship. In the course of loading by the ... ... middle of paper ... ...oyd's Rep 240, the seller would appear to have performed the last act necessary to appropriate the goods to the contract - surely he could not realistically have recalled them at the time of the accident? But the conversion argument assumes that property was still vested in the seller, and indeed the seller's claim in tort also assumes this. The case may therefore suggest a strong reluctance of the courts to hold that property in an F.O.B. contract passes before shipment. 16. On the Hague Rules, Devlin J. did not care for the idea of rights and duties transferring back and forth as the cargo swung on the crane to and from over the ship's rail. Though these remarks are not addressed to the question of risk, they appear to be equally applicable. It has not been decided whether risk passes F.O.B. at the ship's rail, or at the end (or beginning) of the loading process.
Facts: Frigaliment Importing Company sued B.N.S. claiming that B.N.S. had breached warranties in two contracts that they had entered. In the first of the two contracts Frigalimnet had agreed to sell 75,000 pounds of 2.5 to 3 pound chickens and 25,000 pounds of 1.5 to 2 pound chickens. The second contract consisted of 50,000 pounds of 2.5 to 3 pound chickens and 25,000 pounds of 1.5 to 2 pound chickens. ( smaller chickens where priced slightly higher in this contract vice the first agreement) Both contracts were signed by the parties on May 2nd, 1957. BNS shortly after made 2 shipments to meet the requirements of the first contract , of these two shipments the first was not delivered in full, but the shortage was made up with the later shipment. After receiving the shipment, Frigaliment came to the conclusion that the larger chickens delivered were not young chickens suitable for the purpose of frying or broiling. The older chickens commonly known as fowl were only suitable for stewing purposes. Frigaliment then requested to B.N.S. to stop the second contract shipment of chickens and sued BNS, claiming that under the contract B.N.S. was to only ship young chickens. BNS in turn responded that the obligation was simply to ship chickens that met the description in the contract; this was not exclusive to young chickens per the contract.
Arnold & Porter chose to sue Pittston rather than the Buffalo Mining Company because the value of the corporation allowed for adequate compensation to the victims. Author and head lawyer for the plaintiffs, Gerald M. Stern, writes that the original goal was sue to sue for $21 million for the disaster to have a material effect on the cooperation (51). To avoid responsibility Pittston attempted to prove that the Buffalo Mining Company was an independent corporation with its own board of directors. The lawyers for the plaintiffs disproved this claim by arguing the Buffalo Mining Company never held formal meetings of the board of directors and was not independent of the parent company. During this case Pittston’s Oil division had applied to build an oil refinery in Maine. The ...
...useless car to a junk yard to recover some loss, but the difference of the re-sale of the junk-car would be a significant loss. Though there were no adequate assurances to the contract, anticipatory repudiation is the only probable remedy for Jack. However, the outcome would weigh on the predominant factor test, which is met because Tom is covered as a merchant because he is operating in his usual daily business, and Jack is the buyer. The sole purpose of the contract was for Tom to sell Jack a car, and for Jack to buy a car from Tom. The UCC, though less stringent than the statute of frauds, does effectively regulate commercial transfers allowing the free market to operate without diminishing the integrity of trade.
SEKHAR v. UNITED STATES. The Oyez Project at IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law. 14 May 2014. .
Federal Commerce & Navigation Co Ltd v Tradax Export SA (The Maratha Envoy) [1978] AC 1
and water.” Most transporters find loopholes to this law to ignore it, and it does not apply to any
R v Secretary of State for Transport, ex parte Factortame Ltd and others [1999] All ER (D) 1173.
Container shipping industry is kind of international trade and destined restricted by los of regulation, such as ocean environment law, nation’s imports & exports law.
Wade, T. D., Tiggemann, M., Bulik, C. M., Fairburn, C. G., FMedSci, Wray, N. R., Martin, N.
Trade and navigation acts- a series of laws that were setup to protect English shipping and secure money. As a result England became a successful ship building center and there were many new jobs.
Generally speaking, the legal system didn¡¦t play a very active role in this case. First of all, the India government could do more on digging the truth of the gas leak out and set a more strict standard to regulate such dangerous plants in case that another crisis. Second, I didn¡¦t see any one who worked in the Union Carbide¡¦s Bhopal plant should be responsible for that tragedy. Does it mean that all that the India court wanted was money or it just wanted to reduce trial and subsequent appeals because it might have taken more than twenty years?
soon have several ships in port, agrees to part with a pound of flesh if the
Victorian Stevedoring & General. Contracting Co Pty Ltd & Meakes v Dignan (1931) 46 CLR 73
destination in the same condition as they began their journey, though other layers must be put in place to achieve a more comprehensive level of safety for vehicle and cargo transit. Lost or resting cargo containers and vehicles