• Join over 1.2 million students every month
  • Accelerate your learning by 29%
  • Unlimited access from just £6.99 per month

This case is about the disagreement between Simpsons Ltd v Thowers Ltd. The carrier's liabilities will be discussed in three parts, firstly to resolve the problem, I am going to give a short description of the main components of the contract of carriag...

Extracts from this document...

Introduction

This case is about the disagreement between Simpsons Ltd v Thowers Ltd. The carrier's liabilities will be discussed in three parts, firstly to resolve the problem, I am going to give a short description of the main components of the contract of carriage of goods by sea Act 1971, secondly I will decide which of the Hague Visby rules or the Common law is applicable, and to finish I am going to apply the rules in looking for the liabilities of the carrier by searching the duties and the defences of the carrier for each good. I) What is the contract "Carriage of Goods by Sea?" Firstly, we have to check whether the case is governed by "the carriage of goods by sea", or not and Secondly, whether Simpsons and Thowers satisfy all the conditions of Carriage of Goods by Sea. When we are looking at the definition of the contract, the contract stipulates that: ( JCT Chuah, 7-01, p201) * The contract of carriage must be covered by a bill of lading or any similar document of title. * The carriage of goods is from a port in a contracting state. In the case, we know that the contract was covered by two bills of lading. ...read more.

Middle

The carrier and the shipper are free to negotiate their own terms of carriage subject only to the operation of the common law.( JCT Chauh, p 273, 8-11). Art 1(c) Rules are satisfied only if: * The cargo must actually be stowed on deck * The bill of lading states clearly that this is indeed the case Moreover in the case law Svenska Traktor, Aktiebolaget v Maritime Agency (Southampton) ltd. (1953) it was stated that: "A mere general liberty to carry goods on deck is not, in my view, a statement in the contract of carriage that goods are in fact, being carrying on deck. To hold otherwise would, in my view, do violence to the ordinary meaning of the words of art. I (c). I accordingly, hold that the ... tractors were being carried by the [ship owners] subject to the obligations imposed on them by art. III, r. 2 of the Act" (ER Hardy Ivamy, 1977, p51). In this case the Hague Visby rules do apply. III) What is the liability of the carrier for each product? I will look at the carrier's duties and defences. A) What is the liability of the carrier for the loss of five containers of engine parts? ...read more.

Conclusion

Whereas Colinvaux ( 1971,p92) remember that: "Unseaworthiness must cause loss but the carrier will only be responsible if unfitness of the ship "becomes a real cause of loss or damage to the cargo". This fact has been supported by the judgement of the case Tanner v Benneh. For this case the court of appeal that "not with standing an exception of negligence, the ship owner was responsible for the whole of the damage. The carrier could also try to use defences of the carrier due to the negligence of the ship management, who "left a cargo open after an occasional routine inspection". The management of the ship relates to those things done for the safety of the ship. It was not the case which is why the crew still made a mistake. Also the case law Smith, Hogg v Black sea and Baltic general insurance, the court of appeal ( Lord Wright) affirmed the decision that : "the owners were liable whether the master was negligent or not, the ship was Unseaworthy and the Unseaworthiness was a cause of the damage. Conclusion Obviously, the carrier has breached his duties in the first and the second contract. The defence of the carrier does not bring enough objections to acquit Simpsons Ltd. He is therefore liable for the loss of the five containers of engine parts and the damage of 1,000 gallons paint. ...read more.

The above preview is unformatted text

This student written piece of work is one of many that can be found in our AS and A Level Law of Contract section.

Found what you're looking for?

  • Start learning 29% faster today
  • 150,000+ documents available
  • Just £6.99 a month

Not the one? Search for your essay title...
  • Join over 1.2 million students every month
  • Accelerate your learning by 29%
  • Unlimited access from just £6.99 per month

See related essaysSee related essays

Related AS and A Level Law of Contract essays

  1. Marked by a teacher

    Contract Law - Offer And Acceptance

    3 star(s)

    Acceptance must be unqualified * a communication may fail to take effect as an acceptance because it attempts to vary the terms of the offer Tinn v Hoffmann & Co 1873 An offer to sell 1,200 tons of iron is not accepted by reply asking for 800 tons North West Leicestershire D.C.

  2. Four ways in which a contract may be discharged.

    The plaintiff failed to make prompt payment after the first delivery. The defendant, in breach of contract, refused to deliver any more unless the plaintiff paid cash on delivery. The plaintiff refused to do so and claimed as damages the difference between the contract price and the market price.

  1. Entores ltd V. Miles Far East Corperation [1955] 2 QB 327(CA)

    PUT JUDGEMENTS Rules of Law The rule about instantaneous communications between the parties is different from the rule about the post. The contract is only complete when the acceptance is received by the offeror, and the contract is made at the place where the acceptance is received.

  2. Undue influence in the case of Barclays Bank v. O''Brian [1994] Lord Browne-Wilkinson was ...

    As undue influence makes a contract voidable it seems likely that the contract could be set aside and Big Bank will be unable to enforce the transaction against Ann. Question 1/b Ildar will try to recover � 1,000 extra money he paid Camilla arguing that he agreed to do that under economic duress.

  1. What is the importance of implied terms to the contract of employment

    282 30 [1989] I.R.L.R. 507 31 Bracebridge Engineering v Darby [1990] IRLR 3 EAT 32 British Aircraft Corp v Austin [1978] I.R.L.R.

  2. "Everyone has the right to respect for their family life." Discuss this statement in ...

    In the convention the term family is specific for each individual case. For example there are no two families that are the same therefore a person's experience of a family life would be different to another person's experience. For this reason you do not have to be married to have the right to a family life.

  1. I have been asked to advise a client on considering contracting with a building ...

    Termination of an Offer The way in which an offer can be terminated is if it is accepted, therefore creating an agreement. The diagram below shows how an offer can be terminated. Death Rejection Termination of offer Failure of Revocation Lapse of time condition (BPP Common Law 1)

  2. Aspects of Contract and Business Law Case Studies

    the terms of the contract and shows failure of performance on Ben?s behalf. The contract does have consideration because the sculpture has economic value to both Ben as well as Henry and therefore Ben?s failure to perform allows Henry to claim damages because a fundamental condition in the contract has been breached.

  • Over 160,000 pieces
    of student written work
  • Annotated by
    experienced teachers
  • Ideas and feedback to
    improve your own work