A first carrier’s bill of lading provided for shipment at Nicaragua, discharge and transshipment at Cristobal by a named ‘on carrier’ and a final destination in London. Clause 11, dealt with the circumstances of transshipment, to the effect that the first carrier made arrangements for the transshipment and on-carriage ‘solely as the forwarding agent of the shipper and without any other responsibility whatsoever’ and that the transshipment and on-carriage would be subject to ‘all the provisions of the regular form of bill of lading’ of the second carrier. No further bill of lading was issued, but the second carrier did have a regular form of bill of lading. The plaintiff’s cargo was damaged on the second leg and it sued the second carrier. The issue was whether the regime terms of the first carrier’s bill of lading applied throughout the voyage to London, or whether the terms of the second carrier’s regular bill of lading applied.
Held: The second carrier’s terms applied.
Judges:
Sellers J
Citations:
(1956) Ll L Rep 105
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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Transport
Updated: 08 May 2022; Ref: scu.181883
