CLAIMANT DO NOT HAVE THE TITLE TO SUE IN THE CONTRACT

Claimant did not have the title to sue since they were not party to the contract contained in
the MMT B/L either at Common Law [i]; or under COGSA 1992
Doctrine of privity of contract states that only a party to a contract may sue or be sued on it.
Third parties can neither sue, nor be sued,
In case of Brandt v. Liverpool,Bingham L. J observed that. There can be no implied contract
if the parties would have acted exactly as they did, in the absence of a contract. In the instant
dispute, the parties were simply acting as per the pre-existing relationship of holder of the
B/L. It has been generally recognized that in order to be able to imply a contract, it is
necessary for offer, acceptance and consideration to be present in the transaction.
In the instant dispute, there was no action qualifying as offer or acceptance from either side to
create a new contract. In the instant dispute, no consideration flowed from the Claimants as
the freight under the contract was prepaid, and thus, no amount was due to the carrier. thus,
the Claimants were not party to the contract contained in the MMT B/L at common law
CLAIMANT WERE NOT PARTY UNDER COGSA
According to Baughen, a claimant under an MMT B/L who is not a party to the original
contract of carriage will fall outside the ambit of COGSA 1992, i.e., will not obtain the
contractual right to sue otherwise available to third parties under the Act.
the Act does not expressly cover MMT bills, 15 and it is considered that the sphere of this
Act cannot be extended to include MMT documents since they either involve the carriage of
goods only partly by sea or never relate to sea transport at all.
The present B/L does not contain the designation of the carrying ship or indication of receipt
by the sea carrier specifically. Hence It is submitted that an MMT B/L does not pass the
contractual rights to the holder