The court considered a bill of lading in the usual form, save that the words ‘or order or assigns’ are omitted. The court was prepared to assume that such a bill was not a negotiable instrument. It was argued that, notwithstanding the omission of these words, this bill of lading was a negotiable instrument, and there was some authority at nisi prius for that proposition; but the general view of the mercantile world was that, in order to make bills of lading negotiable, some such words as ‘or order or assigns’ ought to be in them.
Citations:
(1873-74) LR 5 PC 253
Jurisdiction:
Commonwealth
Cited by:
Cited – J I MacWilliam Co Inc v Mediterranean Shipping Company S A, ‘The Rafaela S’ CA 16-Apr-2003
Machinery was damaged whilst in transit, on the second of two legs. The contract described itself as a through bill of lading, but the port of discharge was not the final destination.
Held: The contract was a straight bill of lading. A . .
Cited – J I MacWilliam Company Inc v Mediterranean Shipping Company SA; The ‘Rafaela S’ HL 16-Feb-2005
A US company bought a printing machine and ancillary equipment on CIF terms from an English company. The sellers consigned the goods to the buyers. The carriers were a container liner operator and the demise charterers of the vessels ‘Rosemary’ and . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Commercial, Transport, Contract
Updated: 25 November 2022; Ref: scu.181885