Banque de Depots v. Ferroligas
Facts: Banque de depots(swiss bank) brought an action against Bozel(Brazilian exporter) seeking money judgement.
Biddell Brothers v. Clemens Horst
Facts: defendant entered into a contract to sell hops to the plaintiff in London. The seller was ready to ship and expected payment upon presentation of bill of lading. Buyer wanted samples or to inspect goods prior payment. Buyer didn’t want to accept certificate of inspection. Seller refused to ship. CIF transaction.
Analysis: under CIF sales contract, the buyer(biddel) has no right to inspect the goods but is obligated to pay upon the presentation of the proper documents.
Decision: he has no rights to inspect goods.
Basse and Selve v. Bank of Australasia plaintiff has purchased ore from oppenheimer. It requested the bank to negotiate documents on its behalf covering a shipment of a certain type of ore. Also the plaintiff specified that bill of lading should be accompanied by insurance and and certificate of analysis. Oppenheimer submitted samples for analysis, and the chemist issued the certificate. The actual ore was worthless. Plaintiff brought action to recover the money paid by the bank.
Analysis: judgment for defendants because the certificate on its face was regular, the bank had acted properly in paying the seller. The bank has no duty to inspect the goods.
St. Paul guardian v. Neuromed
Shared imaging(American) agreed to purchase an mri machine from neuromed(german). CIF contract. Payment was to be made when machine was received. Contract also stated that it was to be governed by german laws. When the mri was loaded, it was in perfect conditions. When it got to the destination, it was damaged(in transit). Shared imaging filed its claim for insurance with St. Paul guardian, who brought this action against neuromed for damages. Neuromed argues case should be dismissed bcs it it not liable under german laws.
Analysis: the US court, interpreting the german law, held that a delivery term in a sales contract(CIF) should be defined according to Incoterms, unless it is said otherwise. Under the CISG, merchants impliedly agree to trade usages of which they should hsve know. Incoterms have become trade usage, applicable to this contract. The risk of loss passed to the buyer at the port of shipment.
Kumar v. Nopal
Kumar sold tvs to Nava under CIF terms. Kumar delivered the trailer with the goods to its freight forwarder maduro. Trailer was stolen . kumar failed to obtain the insurance. Kumar claims risk passed to Nava.
Analysis: under CIF terms, if the seller fails to obtain marine cargo insurance on behalf of the buyer, the risk of loss remains with the seller, who becomes a self-insurer of the property.
CASE: El Al Israel Airlines v. Tseng Tseng had a ticket to fly with El Al from NY to Tel Aviv. She was questioned by a guard who took her for further inspection. She argues that she suffer assault and false imprisonment under NY law.
Issue: in case the convention doesn’t allow recoveries, is the passenger able to maintain action for damages under a different source of law?
Analysis: under the Warsaw Convention, a passenger may not bring an action for personal injury damages under state law when his/her claim does not satisfy the conditions for liability under the Convention. There was not an accident.
Rule of Law: the treaty declares “apply to all international transportation of persons, baggage, or goods performed by aircraft”. “The carrier shall be liable for damage sustained in the event of death or bodily injury suffered by a passenger, if the accident which caused the damage so sustained took place on board the aircraft or in the course of any operations of embarking and disembarking.
Result: the decision was reversed.
CASE: Olympic Airways v. Husain Dr. Hanson was traveling from Athens to NY. He suffered with asthma and was affected by smoke. He was seating close to the smoking section. His wife asked the flight attendant three times to relocate them and she didn’t do it. He died and the court awarded Mrs.Husain 1.4 million judgement due to the willful conduct of the flight attendant.
Analysis: The flight attendant’s “unexpected or unusual” refusal to move the passenger to another seat, contrary to airline policy and industry standards, was an “accident” that was “external to the passenger” within the meaning of Article 17 of the Montreal Convention.