On this page you will find analysis on a range of International Trade Law cases. If you are looking for a case that has not been added, please get in touch and the case will be added to the website as soon as possible.
Equitable Trust Company of New York v Dawson Partners Ltd (1927)
The buyers bought Vanilla beans from the seller in Indonesia. A bank was instructed to open a confirmed letter of credit with payment being against documentation that included a certificate of quality to be issued by experts (more than one required). The bank in Indonesia mistakenly informed the seller that there should be a tender of certificate by just one expert. The seller shipped non-conforming goods, but the one expert failed to discover this. The House of Lords held that the claimant bank was not entitled to be reimbursed by the buyer since contrary to instructions, they had made finance available on the certificate of quality of just one expert and not the required two as required by the letter of credit.
"There is no room for documents which are almost the same, or which do just as well" - Lord Sumner.
This case is a clear indication of the reluctance of the judiciary to divert from the terms of a letter of credit and from the doctrine of strict compliance.
Reardon Smith Line v Black Sea and Baltic General Insurance (1939)
Under charterparties contracts there is an assumption that that a direct geographical route will be taken. However, deviation may occur where the route taken was a customary route. In this case, a ship deviated from a direct geographical route to pick up cheap fuel. The defendants were able to show that their vessels generally made this deviation and around a quarter of vessels on this route did likewise to obtain this cheap fuel. The House of Lords held that their had been no deviation in the circumstances.
The Ardennes (1951)
The claimants had sought to ship mandarin oranges from Spain to London. The claimants were very keen to ensure that they arrived before 1st December 1947, when there was due to be a rise in import duty. The shipping agents who were aware of this urgency gave a verbal assurance that if the cargo was loaded on 22nd November the ship would sail direct to London. The ship used for transporting the oranges had other cargo on board that was destined for Antwerp. It first called to Antwerp before carrying on to London. It did not reach London until 4th December. By which time, the import duty had rise and the price of oranges on the London market plummeted. The bill of lading that had been issued did allow for the ship to call at other Ports during the voyage. When the claimant sued, the Shipowner argued that the provision in the bill of lading that allowed the ship to call at other Ports was valid. However, the Court concluded that oral evidence was admissible in terms of the actual contract of carriage.
Brown, Jenkinson & Co Ltd v Percy Dalton (London) Ltd (1957)
An indemnity was given by the exporters to the claimants who acted as Loading Brokers for the ship-owners. The cargo consisted of 100 barrels of orange juice. The Tally Clerk, when looking at the cargo, noted down that the barrels were old and frail and that some were leaking. The claimants at the request of the defendants and with the promise of an indemnity had issued a clean bill of lading. The Court of Appeal held that such an indemnity was invalid.
Sze Hai Tong Bank v Rambler Cycle Co. Ltd (1959)
Bicycle parts were sold by an English seller to a buyer in Singapore. The English seller had issued instructions to the Bank of China to release the bill of lading to the buyer when payment had been received. However, the buyer managed to persuade the Carrier (Ship-owner) to deliver the goods to them without receiving sight of the bill of lading. They did this on the basis of supposed indemnity that had been promised by the buyer. The seller subsequently brought a legal action in Singapore against the Carrier (Ship-owner) for breach of contract. The Carrier brought into the action as a third party the Sze Hai Tong Bank, who they claimed the indemnity from. The Singapore court held that the Carrier was liable and that the Sze Hai Tong Bank was obliged to indemnify them.
A subsequent appeal to the Privy Council in London was rejected, Lord Denning stated:
"It is perfectly clear that a ship-owner who delivers without production of the bill of lading does so at his peril".
Leyland Shipping v Norwich Union (1918)
A ship was torpedoed and was taken by tugs to be docked. The ship sprang a leak after knocking against the dock, which was caused by strong winds. There was a fear that the vessel would sink and block the quay, the ship was ordered to leave and and be moored outside the harbour, where it sank.
The Assured sought to argue that while the ship had been hit by a torpedo, it was the operation of the waves that the caused the total loss of the vessel. However, it was argued that subsequent events were a result of the torpedo. The House of Lords agreed with this.
