Dromgoole And Yvone Baatz: A Document Of Title

916 Words2 Pages

The third main function of a BOL is that it can be recognized as a ‘document of title’. Sarah Dromgoole and Yvone Baatz explained a document of title as, “A document of title is a documentary intangible, in other words a document which is capable of representing a chose in action. There are two kinds of documentary intangible: documents of title to money and documents of title to goods. Both kinds of documentary intangible symbolize, or represent, an obligation. As far as a document of title to goods is concerned, the obligation is that the party with physical possession of the goods promises to deliver the goods to the holder of the document and to no-one else. In the case of a bill of lading, the party with physical possession of the goods …show more content…

There is issue whether the BOL is a negotiable or is it merely a transferable document. One person can transfer a transferable document to another, passing to the transferee the rights of the original holder but no more, in negotiable documents, the transferee rights that are better or greater than the right of the transferor. According to English law, a BOL is not negotiable, even though the BOL has some characteristics of a negotiable document, it is stated that it does not have the essential elements. This is stated so because, the transferee of the bill cannot acquire a better title than that of the predecessor; if stolen or endorsed without the shipper’s authority, a subsequent bona fide holder of the lost or stolen bill cannot acquire the rights to the goods by presenting the bill; a finder or thieve cannot give title to BOL even in the case of a bill endorsed in blank. However according to American Law, under the provisions of Federal Bills of Lading Act (FBLA) and Uniform Commercial Code (UCC), bill of lading are defined as negotiable documents, even if it is clear on legislation that BOL is negotiable, American courts were reluctant to put these legislation to …show more content…

The case of Barber v Meyerstein recognized the BOL as a symbol of possession and the case of Sanders v Maclean further approved this statement. In this case Bown Lj said, “A cargo at sea while in the hands of the carrier is necessarily incapable of physical delivery. During this period of transit and voyage, the bill of lading by the law merchant is universally recognized as its symbol, and the endorsement and delivery of the bill of lading operates as a symbolical delivery of the cargo ... It is a key which in the hands of a rightful owner is intended to unlock the door of the warehouse, floating or fixed, in which the goods may chance to be.” However in the case of Sewell v Burdick , Lord Bramwell, stated that goods pass according to parties intentions and these intentions are to be found in the contract for the sale of goods. Therefore if the transfer of the BOL is to pass possession of goods too, then it should be mentioned in the contract of

More about Dromgoole And Yvone Baatz: A Document Of Title

Open Document