The Gazette 1991

JANUARY/FEBRUARY 1991

GAZETTE

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).

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.

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