(1862) 7 H. & N. 574, 158 E.R. 600.
Court of Exchequer
This was the first reported c.i.f. (or c.f. & i.) contract case. The contract was for 300 tons of rails, delivered at Harburgh, c.f. & i., and the court held that the seller did not undertake to deliver the rails at Harburgh, but to put in on board a ship bound for Harburgh and hand to the buyer a policy of insurance and other documents, after which his liability ceased and the goods were at the risk of the purchaser.
Pollock C.B. (p. 602 of the E.R.) decided the case on the basis that in "the absence of any evidence of what the parties meant, the general principle must prevail, viz., that where money is paid under a contract it cannot be recovered back unless it is clear that such was the intention of the parties. Wilde B. also emphasised that payment had been on delivery to the ship. But Martin B. construed the document according to the known practice of merchants, and effectively therefore defines the term "c.f. & i."
In Tregelles v. Sewell, it seems probable that property also passed on shipment, since the goods had been paid for, but just as for f.o.b., the it is now clear that the rule as to risk is general in its application (see, e.g., Groom v. Barber), and does not depend on the time of property passing, and indeed, in c.i.f. contracts, it is usual for the property to pass on tender of documents (see, e.g., Ginzberg v. Haemetite Steels), i.e., after the passing of risk.
Top of case, list of cases, legal top-level page, international trade page
Mail Paul Todd : toddpn2@cf.ac.uk
This page was last updated on 15 Feb 98.