Nasrin Noor Mukta

2016-2-66-004

Course code : Law 208

Section :1

Ans to the question number -2

ISSUE :

Wheather Mr. Khan have any right to sue Mr. Shu to get his money back ? Can Mr.shue get any
compensation from Mr. pandey ?Mr nain is laible of the damage of goods?

LAW:

1.Rights of Unpaid Seller against the Buyer Personally Suite for price (Section 55)

2. Duties of Carrier by Sea ACT.

3. Liability of carrier by air act .

ANALYSIS :

In this case mr.khan is a seller and m.r shue is a buyer .They made a contract and Mr shue give
mr khan full payment of the goods by check as a condition .so mr khan transfer his all goods as
the condition of check . however Mr khan made a contract with mr panday as a sea carriar or mr
Nain as a Air carrier for the delivery of goods to mr Shue. The half of goods are fully damage for
the negligencey of mr. Panday and the other goods are damage by accident of the plane .so mr
shue can not get his goods properly. After that mr kha cheque was dishonoured by the Bank and
he wants to contract mr shue but he cant not contrat with him.for the dishonoured of by the bank
mr khan become a unpaid seller.Mr khan get some right and he can suits for price under section
55 . In section 55 provide that If the seller has passed the goods to the buyer and the price is
payable but the buyer wrongfully neglects to pay the price than the saller can get the right for
suits his goods price . Manewhile mr khan sought compensation to mr panday . Panday said he
drop 200 containers for saving the goods.Mr panday is liable for 50 containers for his negligence
. His negligence arising from the negligence provide in the duty of carrier by sea Act.His
negligence is under Rotterdam rules of duty of carrier by sea Act. The Rotterdam rules provide
that the carriers should exercise due diligence in ensuring the ship . The entire time the goods are
under care of the carrier But he is not liable for the 150 containers of goods.He drop 150
containers of the goods into the sea in order to prevent sinking of the ship so he can no liable for
the damage of 150 containers of goods.

Mr nain are not liable because an unknown mechanical defect in the air an accident is accure of
the plane .For the entire cargo of such goods was completely damaged. So mr nain is not liable
under Inherent defect, quality or vice of the cargo by the act of Air .

CONCLUSION :

So according to the law and analysis the fact mr have to right a sue against mr shue as a unpaid
seller .Mr shue can get some compensation from mr. pandey for his negligence and mr nain r not
laiable beacuse of the accident an act of god .

Ans to the question number -1

ISSUE :

weather Mr. Pandith pay the compensation for the whole loss of the goods? Mr pandith can sue
against mr. Protik?

LAW:

In this case fact is under The Carrie Act 1865 .The carriers act 1885 sectin (2) common
carriers ,also under section of 72 to 83A (viii) hidden defects responsibility of Railway Act
1890.

ANALYSIS :
In this case mr.priyo is a seller and he made contact with mr .pathak . Mr.priyo contact with mr
pandith to delivered the product to mr. Pathak .mr pandith sub contract with mr.protik and
Mr.protik sub contract with mr pazi.

When mr protik booking the carrige he simply informed that the good are sallted.He was give no
instruction from mr protik.when he carring the goods he saw the total weight of the truck is
overloaded and it is not permissible for the rod of transport. He decide to devide the goods so he
arrange a train for craving 20 kg meat and 30 kg arrived by the truck . After the truck driver stop
the truck for take rest in order to comply time and rest time . While the driver was sleeping the
loaded truck were robber.

At the end of the day pathak got only 10 kg meat in a bad condition. So this fact mr .

Mr. Pondith is liable he did not give proper instruction to protik for the packaging of goods n
protik did not give the proper instruction to pazi.

In the sub contractor they are not liable for the negligence of his agent.The agent did not give
proper indtruction to his sub contractor so he will be liable for his negligence and also his servent
negligence.

In non scheduled goods carriar will be liable for his servent negligence.. Also the truck driver
will not be liable because the take rest in his comply time and rest time.

The railway authority is not liable because mr.pazi did not said the goods condition .so the
condition is under hidden defects responsibility of the goods owner not the railway authority.

CONCLUSION :

Analysis to the fact and the law mr pandith pay the compensation of half loss of the goods as a
agent of the sub contractor.MR Priyo also liable because he did not said the good condition and
he did not give it in proper packeged. Mr pandith can not sue the protik because he have no
negligence.