51 / 462
GAZETTE
JANUARY/FEBRUARY 1991
6. See Liam O'Malley
Irish Business Law
page
215.
7. The Bills of Lading Act 1855 had
general UK application and there is no
apparent reason why it should not have
been carried forward by Article 50 of
Bunreacht na hEireann.
8. Since 1855, rights and obligations
under a contract of carriage to which
this section applies, pass once the
property in the goods has passed. The
only contract on which the carrier is
liable for substantial, as opposed to
nominal, damages is the bill of lading
contract with the consignee or the
indorsee. Some residual rights may
remain in the seller, but these are not
relevant to the present discussion. For
instance, nominal damages may arise
in the case of a charterparty. For a
general
consideration
of
the
relationship of seller and carrier after
the operation of section 1 of the Bills
of Lading Act 1855 see Lord Diplocks
judgement in
Aibacrus (cargo owners)
-v- Aibazero (owner); The Albazero
[1977] A.C. 774 See also David Tiplady
Introduction to the Law of International
Trade at p105.
9. Section 16.
10. [1974] IR 101, SC.
11. H.C. Unrep. 13/3/1980.
12. [1986] 1 AC 785; [1985] 1 QB 350
(C.A.).
1 3. The Irish Courts have also applied the
provision that a retention of right of
disposal clause will postpone the
passing of property in goods. See for
example
In re WJ Hickey Limited (in
receivership)
[1988] IR 126.
14. Section 19 (2).
1 5.
The Knowprincessan Margarita
[1921 ]
1 A.C. 486.
1 6. As for example in the case of
A/bacruz
(cargo owners) -v- Albazero (owners;)
The Albazero (1977) A.C. 744.
17. (1884) 10 App Cas 74. The case
involved an action by a carrier against
a bank for freight, which failed under
section 1 of the Bills of Lading Act
1855 for the reason set out above.
Although a documentary credit was not
at issue, the decision would apply
equally to sales by documentary credit.
18. [1924] 1 KB 575.
19. (1912) 46 ILTR 222, HC.
2 0. See Paul Todd
Contracts for the
Carriage of Goods by Sea,
p162.
21.
Kennedy -v- Kennedy
HC Unrep.
January 12, 1984.
2 2. [1974] 1 WLR 341.
2 3. In
The Wear Breeze
[1969] 1 QB 219
none of the documents, which included
delivery orders, were issued by the
shipowner and it was assumed that the
purchaser had no contract.
2 4.
Grant -v- Norway
(1851) 10 CB 665
138 ER 263.
2 5.
The Sharp
P134.
2 6. Unrep HC May 28, 1984
Murphy J.
2 7.
The Dunelmia
(1970) 2 QB 289. If the
bill of lading terms were preferred to
those in the charter party, it would be
necessary to infer from the act of
taking up the bill of lading an intention
to vary already agreed terms. Since the
charterer has to take up the bill to
collect the goods, such an inference
would be unreasonable from this act
along.
2 8. As to incorporation see for example
Olley -v- Marlborough
Court Hotel
[1949] 1 KB 532,
Moynihan
-v-
Crowley & Warren & Co
[1958] Ir Jur
Rep 21 (Cir Ct
),S/attery -v- CIE
(1972)
106 ILTR 71 (HC),
Duff-v- Gt Northern
Ry (1878) 4 LR Ir 178 (Exch).
2 9. Ireland has only acceded to the Bills of
Lading convention of 1924 known as
the Hague Rules. There was a 1968
amending protocol which is knwon as
the Visby Rules and the original
convention so amended is known as
The Hague-Visby Rules. The Hague-
Visby Rules are in force in England. The
Irish Government have incorporated the
Hague Rules into Irish Law by
The
Merchant Shipping Act 1947.
3 0. [1925] Lloyds Rep at p378.
31. See for example the comments of
Adams & Brownford in
"The Aiiakmon
and the Hague Rules"
The Journal of
Business Law January 1990 p23.
3 2 . [1962] AC 446; cf
Adler -v- Dickson
[1955] 1QB 158:
Cosgrove -v- Horsfall
(1946) 62 TLR 140;
Geny -v- Mathews
[1965] 3 All ER 24;
Gilchrist, Watt &
Sanderson Pty. -v- York Products Pty.
[1970] 1 WLR 1262.
3 3 . after
Aider -v- Dickson
[1955] 1 QB
158.
3 4. loc.cit.
3 5. loc.cit.
3 6. The use of agency reasoning has often
been artificial:
Haii -v- N E Ry
(1875)
L.R. 10 Q.B. 437;
Barrett -v- Great
Northern Ry
(1904) 20 TLR 175;
The
Kirknes
(1957) P51.
3 7 . [1955] IR 18 (HC).
3 8 . [1963] 97 ILTR 125 (Cir. Ct.).
3 9. [1867] IR 1 Eq 490 (Ch).
4 0 . [1975] AC 154.
41. (1842) 5 Ir Eq R 12 (Ch), an action
related to a breach of promise to marry.
4 2 . [1980] 3 All ER 257.
4 3. See the Australian case of
Godina -v-
Patrick Operations Pty Ltd [
1984] 1
Lloyds Rep 333.
4 4 . [1958] 92 ILTR 156 (Dist.Crt) see also
the position in relation to Ulster tenant
right:
(1898) 32 /LT p309.
4 5. [1986] 1 Lloyds Rep 155.
4 6 . Article II.
4 7 . See footnote no.29 above.
4 8. Adams & Brownford in
"The Aiiakmon
and the Hague Rules.
Journal of
Business Law January 1990 p23 at
p35.
4 9. For example
Ratzlaff -v- Franz Foods,
250 Ark. 1003, 468 SW. 2d (1971).
Irish
Stenographers
Limited
(Director: Sheila Kavanagh)
Qualified
Experienced
Stenographers.
Fast, Efficient Service.
Overnight Transcripts by arrangement
Contact.
Secretary,
Hillcrest House, Dargle Valley,
Bray, Co. Wicklow.
Telephone: (01) 862184
Fax: (01) 862184
31