Contract – Implement – Carrier – Goods Injured – Statuary, Meaning of – Onus
Ciceri and Company, Edinburgh, informed Sutton and Company, London, that they had at Venice and Leghorn a large quantity of goods for shipment ‘consisting of wooden figures, old cases, marble and terra-cotta busts, marble columns, wood frames,’ andc., and requested a quotation of rates for such goods from both these ports to Glasgow by steamer. Sutton and Company, who contracted with steamship and railway companies for the carriage of goods, and charged through rates to the owners, in reply quoted ‘for alabaster goods, furniture, andc., but not for goods described as statuary, the rate of 1s. per cubic foot.’ Ciceri and Company wrote, ‘you seem to make a difference between marble busts and columns and alabaster. Please let us know about this.’ Sutton and Company stated that the quoted rates only applied to freight and did not cover insurance risks, but did not reply to the question as to the supposed difference between the classes of goods. On these terms various large terra-cotta figures, and small figures of men and animals were carried for Ciceri and Company through the agency of Sutton and Company from Leghorn to Edinburgh. The goods arrived injured, and Ciceri and Company sued Sutton and Company for damages in respect of failure to implement their contract of carriage, The defenders maintained (1) that they had acted not as carriers for the pursuers but as their agents in contracting with the actual carriers of the goods, and that their contract of agency had been fully implemented; (2) that the damaged goods were ‘statuary,’ and thus excepted from the contract.
Held ( affirming the judgment of the Second Division) (1) that the defenders were liable as carriers for the injury suffered by the goods, and (2) that the terra-cotta busts not being ‘statuary’ were not excepted from the contract.
Opinion ( per Lord Watson) that general evidence ought not to be led as to the meaning of words of contract without a distinct averment on record as to the particular words to which the proof is to be directed, and the precise technical or trade meaning which the person making the averment desires to attribute to them.
Judges:
Lords Herschell, Watson, and Morris
Citations:
[1890] UKHL 1018, 27 SLR 1018
Links:
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Contract
Updated: 30 June 2022; Ref: scu.636731