Hansson v Hamel & Horley Ltd
Under a CIF contract, the seller must tender a bill of lading that covers the whole of the voyage to the destination, so a through bill issued after transhipment was not sufficient.
Facts
Hansson sold Norwegian guano to Hamel & Horley on CIF terms, for shipment to Japan. The guano was carried from Norway to Hamburg on a coastal ship, and then transhipped onto an ocean going ship to Japan. The bill of lading tendered was issued by the ocean carrier, and covered only the voyage from Hamburg. The buyers refused to accept the documents.
Legal principle
The House of Lords held that the buyers were entitled to reject the documents. Lord Sumner said that the seller under a CIF contract must tender a bill of lading which covers the goods for the whole of the transit, from the port of shipment to the port of destination, so that the buyer has continuous documentary cover against the carriers. The bill of lading tendered did not give the buyers any rights against the carrier for the first part of the voyage, so it was not a proper tender.
Related cases on international sales and documentary credits
- Arnhold Karberg & Co v Blythe, Green, Jourdain & Co [1916] 1 KB 495
- Biddell Brothers v E Clemens Horst Co [1912] AC 18
- Bunge Corp v Tradax Export SA [1981] 1 WLR 711
- Comptoir d'Achat et de Vente du Boerenbond Belge SA v Luis de Ridder Limitada (The Julia) [1949] AC 293
- Discount Records Ltd v Barclays Bank Ltd [1975] 1 WLR 315
- Edward Owen Engineering Ltd v Barclays Bank International Ltd [1978] QB 159
- Equitable Trust Co of New York v Dawson Partners Ltd (1927) 27 Ll L Rep 49
- Gill & Duffus SA v Berger & Co Inc [1984] AC 382
Studying commercial law? Our tutors help you understand and apply cases like this in essays, problem questions and exams. Request a quote or browse our law notes.
This summary is for study and revision and is not legal advice. Although our case summaries are checked for accuracy, we do not guarantee that they are free from errors or omissions. Always read the full judgment for the court's reasoning.
