1a) Whilst it is unfortunate that the useable coal has been reduced by half because of the fire, it is unlikely that the Chinese buyer will be able to seek any remedies against the Australian buyer, AUS STEEL. This is because the contract has specified FOB (Free On Board) which means that the seller has paid for the goods to be loaded onto the ship. In this INCOTERM the risk for those goods is transferred when the goods are loaded. Additionally, the master of the Iron Monarch had issued a clean bill of lading when the goods were loaded. In this situation the risk has been transferred to the carrier and thus the seller is not responsible for the damage that has occurred after the loading of the goods.
1b) Because the risk of the goods has been transferred to the carrier, the determination of any possible remedies lies with them. The key provision to look at will be the carrier’s standard contract of carriage which states:
“The carrier will exercise all reasonable care in the handling and carriage of the goods but in no circumstances will the carrier or its servants or agents be responsible for any loss, damage or injury caused to the said goods.”
Because the buyer has signed this exemption clause, it is unlikely that the Chinese buyer will have any remedies against the carrier, even though it is arguable that the carrier has not exercised all reasonable care in the carriage of the goods. This exemption clause is backed up by Article VII of the Hague-Visby rules, which states:
“Nothing herein contained shall prevent a carrier or a shipper from entering into any agreement, stipulation, condition, reservation or exemption as to the responsibility and liability of the carrier or the ship for the loss or damage to, or in connection w...
... middle of paper ...
...tion of what the buyer is entitled to.
If one operates on the first case, that the late shipment caused the late delivery, then because the terms of the contract have not been fulfilled it is possible that the buyer’s bank will refuse to pay, causing AUS STEEL to not be paid. This dispute could be mediated by both parties agreement that in the interest of good will the breach of contract will be ignored. This will hinge on the reasons for the late arrival of the shipment.
3c) The “Negotiable” part of the document indicates that the issuing bank is not restricted to pay the beneficiary to a specific bank; rather the bank can be any nominated bank so long as the bank is willing to pay. This gives seller a lot more flexibility in the utilization of the payment, in that it can be used for payments to secondary sources, like a manufacturer or supplier of the sellers.
ii) If one is the owner or operator, liability may attach even if some other
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.
Aldo shipped 10 refrigerators to Rafael pursuant to a sales contract under which title to the goods and risk of loss would pass to Rafael upon delivery to Fleet Railroad. The agreed price was $5,000. When the refrigerators were delivered to Rafael, he found they were damaged. An estimate for repairing them showed it would cost up to $1,000, and an expert opinion was to the effect that they were defective when shipped. Rafael put in a claim to Aldo, which Aldo rejected. Rafael then wrote to Aldo, “I don’t like to get into a despite of this nature. I am enclosing my check for $4,000 in full payment of the shipment.” Aldo did not reply, but he cashed the check and then sued Rafael for the $1,000 balance. May he recover? Explain.
...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.
The 10th law of the code states that “If the purchaser does not bring the merchant and the
In this assignment we will exam three case-studies and determine whether the best course of action would be litigation, ADR or criminal prosecution. In the first we look a case of embezzlement, the second is a case of product liability and the third involves a supplier providing non preforming goods. We will evaluate the specifics of each and determine the best course of action. Spoiler alert, some of these may involve more than one course of action.
We may become subject to product liability claims, which could harm our financial condition and liquidity if we are not able to successfully defend or insure against such
Also in case of delivery time delay through no fault of its own, MTD BIO reserves the right to withdraw from the order after the agreed prolonged deadline. In addition, MTD BIO holds the right to be inform about the work process or deliveries on site and at any given time. In case of premature delivery without consent of MTD BIO, this shall not influence the payment deadline, which is not subject to the delivery time. If a delay is caused by a sub-supplier, this must be reported immediately in writing, whereas such delay does not allow violation of delivery times. If MTD BIO accepts, without reserves, the delayed delivery or service, this shall not mean that it waives compensations for damages due to delayed delivery or service. This applies as long as MTD BIO does not complete the payment for a specific shipment or service.
Cross, Frank B., and Roger LeRoy Miller. "Ch. 13: Strict Liability and Product Liability." The legal environment of business: text and cases, 8th edition. Mason, Ohio: Cengage Learning Custom Solutions, 2012. 294-297. Print.
S.6(2) states that as against a person dealing as consumer, liability for breach of the obligations arising from ss.13, 14 or 15 of the Sale of Goods Act 1979 (seller's implied undertakings as to conformity of goods with description or sample, or as to their quality or fitness for a particular purpose) cannot be excluded or restricted by reference to any contract term.
The scope of this paper is to illustrate the ways in which salvage and towage are different. The work of law experts was studied as well as a number of law cases, which assist in drawing useful conclusions.
Noel, Dix. “Defective Products: Abnormal Use, Contributory Negligence and Assumption of Risk” Vanderbilt Law Review. New York: Bedford/St. Martin’s, 2002. 313-23. Print.
 At point of sale consumer are protected by law concerning some aspects of their purchases despite principal of caveat emptor
For a CVC, there is a risk factor element for the owner as the owner will obtain lesser freight if the vessel does its voyage trip as quickly and consecutively due to weather issues or otherwise. Due to this peculiarity of this particular type of charter party, there is a tendency for the charterer to abuse it. As such, there should be an element of caution when it comes to determining rates of freight and