Where goods were supposed only to be handed over by a shipper on receipt of a valid bill of lading, but were instead handed over for fraudulent bill, the shipper remained liable to the owners.
ComC Defendant shipowners issued delivery orders in respect of goods stored on land after discharge from the ship, against presentation of forged bills of lading.
Held: That the shipowners were liable to the time owners of the cargo even on the assumption that they were not negligent in being deceived by the forgeries, and despite a bill of lading clause which exempted them from any ‘liability whatsoever for any loss or damage to the goods which links actual or constructive possession ….. after discharge’. Held also, that there would be no defence in contract or conversion based on the non-negligent acceptance of forged bills of lading as being genuine.
Citations:
Times 31-Mar-1999, [1999] 1 Lloyds Rep 837, [1999] CLC 914, [1999] 1 All ER (Comm) 571
Cited by:
Appeal from – Motis Exports Ltd v Dampskibsselskabet Af 1912 Akleselskab (‘the Motis) CA 20-Jan-2000
Shippers were liable under a bill of lading. The goods had been obtained from them fraudulently by means of forged bills of lading. They claimed under an exemption clause in the contract, but the claim failed since the exclusions from liability for . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Commercial, Transport
Updated: 09 April 2022; Ref: scu.83877
