‘Negotiable’, when used in relation to a bill of lading, means simply transferable. A negotiable bill of lading is not negotiable in the strict sense; it cannot, as can be done by the negotiation of a bill of exchange, give to the transferee a better title than the transferor has got, but it can by endorsement and delivery give as good a title. The bill of lading obtains its symbolic quality from the commercial custom which makes bills of lading ‘negotiable and transferable’ by endorsement and delivery or transmission.
Lord Devlin said:
‘It is well settled that ‘Negotiable’, when used in relation to a bill of lading, means simply transferable. A negotiable bill of lading is not negotiable in the strict sense; it cannot, as can be done by the negotiation of a bill of exchange, give to the transferee a better title than the transferor has got, but it can by endorsement and delivery give as good a title. But it has never been settled whether delivery of a non-negotiable bill of lading transfers title or possession at all. The bill of lading obtains its symbolic quality from the custom found in Lickbarrow v. Mason and that is a custom which makes bills of lading ‘negotiable and transferable’ by endorsement and delivery or transmission. To the same effect the Bills of Lading Act, 1855, recites that a bill of lading is by the custom of merchants ‘transferable by endorsement’. There appears to be no authority on the effect of a non-negotiable bill of lading. This is not surprising. When consignor and consignee are also seller and buyer, as they most frequently are, the shipment ordinarily serves as delivery (Sale of Goods Act, 1893, sect. 32(1) and also as an unconditional appropriation of the goods (sect. 18, rule 5(2)) which passes the property. So as between seller and buyer it does not usually matter whether the bill of lading is a document of title or not.’
Judges:
Lord Devlin
Citations:
[1971] AC 439, [1971] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 439
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
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 – Borealis Ab v Stargas Limited and Others and Bergesen Dy A/S Berge Sisar Dorealis Ab v Stargas Limited and Others HL 27-Mar-2001
The ship came to port, and samples of the cargo proved contaminated. The carrier asserted that the consignee was to be deemed to have demanded delivery, and had so assumed the risk. The court found that the mere taking of samples was not such 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.
Transport, Contract
Updated: 16 May 2022; Ref: scu.181891