This is the third edition of a volume in the British Shipping Laws Series. The first edition was a compilation of two earlier works, Judge Kennedy’s book on C.I.F. Contracts, first published in 1924, and Dr Sassoon’s book on F.O.B. Contracts, a work based on his D.Phil thesis and first published in 1960. As Dr Sassoon explains in the preface to the first edition of the combined work, he has “endeavoured to follow Judge Kennedy’s example more closely and … in both parts adopted the practice of providing more extensive quotation from judgments and reports, thus allowing the explanation of the law to be given in the words of the judges themselves and reducing speculation and hypothesis to a minimum”. One may compare the relevant chapters of Benjamin’s Sale of Goods (2nd edn.), which proceeds in the main by way of statement and discussion of principle with supporting cases discussed in the text in the case of leading or problematic decisions and otherwise identified by footnotes. The “case by case” approach of Sassoon and Merren, particularly in the section based on Kennedy on C.I.F. Contracts, in the view of this reviewer tends to obscure the statement of principle. It may be suggested that it would be an improvement to prune the statements of the facts of cases and quotations from judgments and to use the space saved on more analysis and reconciliation of authorities in areas of difficulty.

Passages which merit further attention follow. The discussion, at pp. 39–41, of s. 13 of the Sale of Goods Act 1979 and the obligation that the goods shipped must correspond with the contract description does not consider the statement by Lord Wilberforce in the House of Lords in Reardon Smith Line v. Hansen-Tangen [1976] 1 W.L.R. 989 that some of the authorities as to “description” in sale of goods cases are excessively technical and due for fresh examination in the House. The statement on p. 55, that “In any case where the bill of lading does not record the true date or period of shipment, whether fraudulently or innocently, the buyer therefore has the right to reject the goods”, does not advert to the buyer’s right to reject the documents. It is difficult to understand the proposition at the top of p. 79 that in Empresa Exportadora de Azucar v. Industria Azucarera Nacional S.A. (The PlayaLarga) [1983] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 171 “the judgment noted that s. 12(2) [of the Sale of Goods Act] did not apply”. The reference on p. 92 to the Finska Cellulosaforeningen case [1940] 4 All E.R. 473 does not note the comment on it by Donaldson, J., in S.I.A.T. v. Tradax Overseas S.A. [1978] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 470, at 492. In the discussion at p. 114 of Cremer v. General Carriers [1974] 1 W.L.R. 341, it could be brought out that the contract inferred on the terms of the bills of lading from the transaction involving the presentation of delivery orders was of the Brandt v. Liverpool type. The statement at p. 121 in relation to the Panchaud Frères case [1969] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 109 (reversed [1970] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 53), to the effect