MAY & HASSELL, LTD. v. VSESOJUZNOJE OBJEDINENIJE "EXPORTLES."

(1940) 66 Ll.L.Rep. 103

KING'S BENCH DIVISION.

Before Mr. Justice Atkinson.

Sale of goods (c.i.f.)-Documents- Rejection by buyers as being bad tender- Damages for non-shipment - Arbitration clause-Jurisdiction of arbitrator -Sale of wood goods by Russian shippers to English buyers, "the goods to be shipped at Igarka during 1937 navigation or as soon thereafter as suitable tonnage obtainable but this latitude is limited to twenty-one days" -Price to include c.f. and i. to United Kingdom ports - "Shiproom to be secured by sellers in due time; they, however, not to be responsible for any delay in shipment occasioned by circumstances beyond their control"-"It is hereby understood and agreed that any disputes under this contract which cannot be settled amicably, except such as refer to the quality, condition, measurement, or manufacture of, or correctness of documents for, goods shipped, shall be referred to" arbitration in Moscow-Excepted matters to be subject of English arbitration in accordance with English Arbitration Acts - Arrangements made by sellers for transhipment at Murmansk-Bills of lading to be in "Russwood form" -Transhipment bills of lading dated Oct. 18, 1937, tendered by sellers - Bills signed by representative of "Chief Administration of Northern Route"-Policies and invoices tendered covering goods other than contract goods - Rejection of documents by buyers-Dispute "as to the correctness of the documents tendered" submitted to arbitration in England - Jurisdiction of English arbitrator - Arbitrator's findings that he had jurisdiction to determine the right to reject and to make an award of damages for non-delivery; that none of the goods covered by the documents tendered was shipped "during 1937 navigation"; that buyers were entitled to reject the bills of lading, policies and invoices as being incorrect; and that they were entitled to damages based on the average difference between the contract and market prices-Case stated-Questions for the opinion of the Court: Whether upon the facts found by the umpire and upon the true construction of the contracts of sale and of the documents tendered to the buyers by the sellers the buyers were entitled (a) to an award declaring that the buyers were entitled to reject the documents; and (b) to an award of damages.