(1845) 3 Moore Ind. App. 422, 430, 18 E.R. 560, 563 (P.C.)
This was an early f.o.b. contract case, where delivery was to the ship, treated in cases such as Ruck v. Hatfield (1822) 5 B. & Ald. 632, 106 E.R. 1321, and Craven v. Ryder (1816) Taunt. 433, 128 E.R. 1103, as the buyer's warehouse.
Lord Brougham observed that:
"It is proved beyond all doubt, indeed it is not denied, that when goods are sold in London, ‘free on board,’ the cost of shipping then falls on the seller, but the buyer is considered as shipper."
Delivery was to the ship, and risk and property would typically pass on shipment in f.o.b. contracts at that time - property had accordingly passed in Cowas-Jee, and the goods were no longer in transitu, so f.o.b. sellers of lead were unprotected against the buyer’s bankruptcy after shipment before the maturity of six-month bills. They had attempted to protect themselves by having mate's receipts issued to them, in the hope that bills of lading would not be issued to the buyers except on delivery up of the mate's receipts, but the bills of lading were issued without delivery up of mate's receipts, and the sellers were unprotected (it is now clear from cases such as Nippon Yusen Kaisha that the shipowner is not obliged, where the buyer is shipper, to demand delivery up of mate's receipts).
Top of case, list of cases, legal top-level page, international trade page , definition of mate's receipt
Mail Paul Todd : toddpn2@cf.ac.uk
This page was last updated on 30 Dec 97.