i-law

Lloyd's Maritime and Commercial Law Quarterly

English Sale of Goods Law

Djakhongir Saidov *

CASES

95. Geofizika DD v. MMB International Ltd1

CIP INCOTERMS 2000—seller’s duty to procure a carriage contract on usual terms—seller’s duty to procure insurance—deck carriage—damages
In early October 2006, the seller, a UK manufacturer of customised special vehicles, sold three four-wheel-drive Land Rover ambulances to the buyer, a Croatian company involved in geophysical and seismic work in the oil and gas industry. The buyer needed the ambulances to use them at two camps in Libya where it was doing seismic work. The goods were sold on the basis of “CIP, Tripoli”, INCOTERMS 2000. The seller engaged GSC, a freight forwarder, to arrange carriage of the goods. GSC in turn contracted with BLL for the carriage. BLL advertised ro-ro service to Libya. However, had GSC visited the website of BLL, it would have been apparent that BLL was unlikely to be able to provide a ro-ro service and that vehicles were, at least sometimes, strapped to other cargo carried on deck. The booking confirmation sent by BLL stated: “ALL VEHICLES WILL BE SHIPPED WITH ‘ON DECK OPTION’ this will be remarked on your original bills of lading … ”. GSC did not seek copies of the printed terms of the bills of lading. It received unsigned originals of the bills of lading which, in cl 7, referred to the carrier’s option to carry the goods on deck. GSC procured insurance in the form of a certificate containing the clause “Warranted shipped under deck”. The vehicles were stored on deck and apparently washed overboard. The buyer had to hire alternative vehicles for a long period of time (until 2008) since, being a Croatian company emerging from that country’s troubled past, it could not afford the cost of replacement. The buyer settled its claim against BLL for £50,000. This amount was less than the buyer’s loss and the buyer claimed against the seller for breaching its obligations to contract on usual terms for the carriage and/or to obtain insurance entitling the buyer to claim directly from the insurer. The seller denied the breach and disputed the amount of damages. The seller further contended that, if it were liable to the buyer, its liability ought to be reimbursed by GSC because of the latter’s breach of its obligations as a freight forwarder to use reasonable care and skill.
Decision: Buyer’s claim allowed; seller’s claim against GSC allowed.
Held: (1) All parties agreed that the contract should have provided for vehicles to be carried on deck and therefore the seller breached its obligation to arrange for carriage on


ENGLISH SALE OF GOODS LAW

61

The rest of this document is only available to i-law.com online subscribers.

If you are already a subscriber, click Log In button.

Copyright © 2024 Maritime Insights & Intelligence Limited. Maritime Insights & Intelligence Limited is registered in England and Wales with company number 13831625 and address 5th Floor, 10 St Bride Street, London, EC4A 4AD, United Kingdom. Lloyd's List Intelligence is a trading name of Maritime Insights & Intelligence Limited.

Lloyd's is the registered trademark of the Society Incorporated by the Lloyd's Act 1871 by the name of Lloyd's.