Right and Duties of the Transacting Partite - Myassignmenthelp.Com

Question: Dsicuss about the Right and Duties of the Transacting Partite. Answer: In the field of International law, the C.I.F contracts proved to be beneficial because it acts as a contract of sale between a buyer and seller. In this regard, certain rights have been provided by the Carriage of Goods by Sea Act 1992 to the consignee of a bill of lading which is related to contract of carriage of goods by sea. In this process certain liabilities are possessed by an individual according to Section 2(1) of the Carriage of Goods by Sea Act 1992[1]. It is noteworthy to mention here that, in order to possess liabilities under the Act, it is necessary that the individual should be entitled to certain rights under Section 2(1) of the Carriage of Goods by Sea Act 1992. According to the provisions of Section 3(1) of the COGSA Act 1992 it is necessary on the part of the buyer and his assignee to make them liable to the contract. However, in order to make them liable for the contract, there must be a demand made by the carrier regarding the nature of the goods. In order to in cur liabilities arising out of contracts, the buyer is required to claim damages of the defected good based on the bill of lading that has been issued in relation to the goods. In Barclays Bank Ltd v Commissioner of Custom Excise[2] it has held that for the purpose of claiming damages from the carrier under the provisions of Section 3(1) the delivery needs to be stipulated from such carrier with the help of bill of lading. However, in this case it was also held that the condition of the goods must be same after the delivery as demanded by the buyer. Therefore, it can be observed that there was an agreement of sale between Sophie and Samantha which were based on the terms of C.I.F contracts. A bill of lading was issued in the name of Samanthas company. Therefore, Samantha is at the authority to sue Sophie for breach of contract as she received the wrong goods which were not the same as they were at the time of purchase. Since time immemorial, the bill of lading has been acting as evidence in case of sale agreement involving C.I.F contracts. In Sanders Brothers v Maclean Co[3] it was decided that a bill of lading is generally accepted as a form of evidence as it involves the process of absolute transfer of property of goods between the buyer and the seller. A bill of lading has been termed as a living instrument in Charles Barber and Others v William Meyerstein[4]. It was held in Sanders Brothers v Maclean Co that the bill of lading sometimes forms the basis of a contract between the buyer and the carrier of goods other than that of mere evidence. It was observed in Lickbarrow v Mason[5] that a bill of lading not only forms evidence in contract however, in most of the cases it is regarded as the document of title based on which the buyer can claim damages for breach of contract. In this case it was also held that the bill of lading is used as evidence in case of contract of carriage of goods and in some cases it is recognized as an actual contract once it is approved by a third party. However, the terms of contract which are depicted in the bill of lading are conclusive in nature and in this regard no evidence can be presented in order to contradict those terms. It can be seen that after investigation Miriam found that the diaries were damaged which occurred as a result of the storage conditions of the container. In this regard, it can be stated that Miriam can bring a claim for the damages against the Best Carriers as the containers with the diaries were carried by them. Therefore, Miriam is at the authority to claim damages from the Best Carriers by showing the bill of lading as evidence which was accepted by her after receiving the container of diaries. The right to reject the goods and the documents are the basic rights of a buyer. The buyer in this regard, is entitled to terminate the contract, if there is any breach of contract in the domain of international sale of goods. The provisions of Section 30 of the Sale of Goods Act 1979 illustrates that the buyer is at the authority to reject the goods by terminating the contract if the conditions interpreted in the contract are not fulfilled by the seller. However, there lies no responsibility on the part of the buyer to return the goods that has been rejected according to the provisions of Section 36 of the Sale of Goods Act 1979[6]. The bill of lading is an important document which is required during the formulation of contract of sale deeds. However, two different kinds of rights are associated in C.I.F contracts- rights related to goods and rights related to documents. In Re Moore and Landauer[7] it was observed that an agreement took place between the buyer and the purchaser for the sale of canned fruit in 3,000 tins which are contained in 30 tin cases. After delivery, it was discovered that there were only 24 tins in the cases however; there still existed a number of 3,000 tins. The Court ruled that the buyer was not entitled to loss as the market value remained the same after such delivery. Therefore, the buyer is not at the authority to reject the goods and the documents. Similarly, in Berger Co. Inc v Gill Dufus SA[8] it was observed that documents can be rejected by the buyer if they do not comply with the contract. Therefore, in the present case study it can be stated that Sophie is correct and David may only reject those goods which do not comply with the contract. In this regard, it can be stated that only those documents can be rejected by David that do not adhere to the conditions of the contract. However, as the relevant documents were already accepted by David therefore he is not at the authority to reject the goods. In Federal Commerce Navigation v Molena Alpha[9] it was observed that if the documents are accepted by the buyer at the time of purchase then he shall be able to reject them upon arrival if any defect is observed. Therefore in case of C.I.F contracts, it is important on the part of the buyer to check the documents carefully. However, in case of C.I.F. contracts, there is a right to reject documents other than that of goods. In this regard, it is noteworthy to mention here that, the buyer has the authority to reject the goods only when he has accepted the relevant documents. However, he may reject the goods on its arrival if they are not the same as depicted in the contract. In such cases, the bill of lading proved to be beneficial as it served as the receipt of shipment of goods. In this regard, Section 14(2b) of the Sale of Goods Act 1994 states that goods can be rejected by the consumer if it seems to be defective on arrival[10]. Therefore it can be stated that if Samantha knew that wrong diaries were provided to her therefore, she had the opportunity to reject both the documents and the bill of lading that has been issued during purchase. Bibliography: Barber (Charles) v. William Meyerstein (1869 70) LR 4 HL. 317 (HL). Federal Commerce Navigation v Molena Alpha [1979] AC 757. Gill Duffus S.A. V. Berger Co. Inc [1984]. Her Majesty's Commissioners of Customs and Excise v Barclays Bank Plc [2006] UKHL 28. Lickbarrow v Mason ((1788), 2 T. R. 63 and (1794) 5 TR 683). Mansfield, Edward D., and Eric Reinhardt. "International institutions and the volatility of international trade."The Political Economy Of International Trade. 2015. 65-96. Re Moore and Landauer [1921] 2 KB 519. Sanders Bros v. Maclean Co (1883) 11 QBD 327, 341. Soni, Puja. "The Rights and Duties of the Transacting Parties Under FOB International Sales Contract." (2014). Voon, Tania SL, and Andrew D. Mitchell. "International Trade Law." (2014). [1] Voon, Tania SL, and Andrew D. Mitchell. "International Trade Law." (2014). [2] [2006] UKHL 28. [3] (1883) 11 QBD 327, 341. [4] (1869 70) LR 4 HL. 317 (HL). [5] (1788), 2 T. R. 63 and (1794) 5 TR 683). [6] Soni, Puja. "The Rights and Duties of the Transacting Parties Under FOB International Sales Contract." (2014). [7] [1921] 2 KB 519. [8] [1984]. [9] [1979] AC 757. [10] Mansfield, Edward D., and Eric Reinhardt. "International institutions and the volatility of international trade."The Political Economy Of International Trade. 2015. 65-96.