Carriage of goods by Sea

History
• The origin of the B/L can be found with the Register
books which ship’s clerk were obliged to maintain.
• Those days owners of the goods use to sail along
with the goods on ship and therefore there was no
need of the B/L.
• When trading practises began to change and goods
owners were no longer able to travel with the goods
to their destination.
• It was then, that the use of B/L began to start.
• The earlier function of the B/L was thus, that it was used as a
receipt of the goods that was shipped.
• Subsequently, the other two functions came into picture when
there was a requirement to incorporate the terms of the contract.
• Later, with modernization and availability of the new modes of
transport, cargo owners preferred to sell their goods while in
transit which brought the third function of the B/L i.e. document
of title.
• Thus, the first case Lickbarrow V. Mason- recognized the custom of
merchants that a B/L in which goods were stated to have been
shipped enabled the holder to transfer the property in the goods
to the transferee.
• Thus it stated that B/L is capable of
transferring property.
• But the ability of to give its holder a symbolic
possession of goods was yet to be developed
which was then decided in the
“ Barber V Meryerstein”
• Thus it gave the holder of the B/L the legal
possession of the goods.
• Historically, the liability of the carrier under the
B/L contract to transport the cargo safely to its
destination was strict with only few exceptions:
• 1. act of God
• 2. public enemies
• 3. inherent vices
• Even though the carrier was covered by these
exceptions, he would otherwise be liable for his
own negligence.
• The dominating power of the carrier to excuse himself from
liability took one more step when he tried to exempt himself
from the liability even for loss resulting from their own
negligence.
• The resultant combined resistance from the shipper, bankers and
others led to the initial legislation called the Harter Act 1893 in
USA.
• This was also felt to be insufficient for which a huge demand to
form an international convention came forth.
• Therefore, for the first time the Maritime Law Committee of the
International Law Association came up with a draft called the
“Hague Rules” in Brussels on 25 August 1924.
• The declared objective of the Hague Rules was to unify certain
rules relating to B/L and to establish a minimum degree of
protection for the cargo owner but a maximum protection the
carrier could derive from the insertion of exception and limitation
clauses in the contract.
• This was given effect in the UK by the Carriage of Goods by Sea
Act, 1924.
• With further advancements in trade and transport, problems
arose in the Hague Visby rules which gave more protection to the
Carrier.
• This gave way to amendments which resulted in the formation of
the “Hague/Visby Rules” in February 1968.
 Definitions
• Bills of Lading- it is a type of transport document that
may be issued in respect of the carriage of goods by sea
by or on behalf of the owners, or less commonly the
charterers of the carrying ship.
• A B/L serves as a receipt for the goods entrusted to the
carrier in respect of both the quantity and the condition
of the goods received.
• When goods are already loaded on board the ship- such
a B/L is called as a “shipped” B/L- See Diamond Alkali
Export Corporation v. Fl. Boureois (1921) 2 KB 443
 Kinds of Bills of Lading
• But when goods are into the carrier’s care and
custody before loading such a B/L is called as
“Received for shipment bill”
• Such a bill is considered as a document of title
in the civil law jurisdiction but is yet unclear in
common law jurisdiction.
 Bearer B/L
• A B/L made out without naming the consignee but in
favour simply of “bearer” or “holder” or is kept blank –
is known as the Bearer B/L.
• This means that delivery will be effected whomsoever
holds the bill.
• It can be negotiated by physical delivery.
• Sec. 1(2)(a), 5(2)(b) of the COGSA, 1992 recognizes the
fact that the person entitled to delivery may be
identified simply as the bearer of the bill.
• A bearer bill is a document of title.
 Order B/L
• A B/L made out in favour of a named consignee “
or order” is called as an Order B/L
• Eg. “Delivery to A ltd or to order or assigns”

• This bill of lading can further be indorsed by the

consignee, i.e. the right to take delivery can be
transferred by physical delivery of the bill
accompanied by adequate evidence of A ltd’s
intention to transfer.
• Clean and claused B/L-
• A B/L which bears no clause or notation which
expressly declares a defective condition of the
goods or packaging- called a clean B/L.
 Straight Bills of Lading
• It is a non-negotiable B/L made out to a named
consignee which omits the word “negotiable”, or “to
order” or “order and assign” on its face.
• The effect of this is that it is rendered ineffective by
indorsment.
• Eg. These are usually issued by consignee who do not
wish to resell the goods.
• Eg. In-house transfers within large multinational
companies.
• But in Rafaela S, it was held to be a document of title.
 Sea waybill
• These were initially developed for use in land
and air transport in which negotiable
documents of title were not required.
• The important distinction is that in case of way
bill, the carrier is only obliged to deliver the
goods to the name consignee without the
production of the B/L but he must identify
himself as the named consignee.
• So how does it differ from the normal B/L-
• While it acts as a receipt of the goods shipped
and evidence the contract of carriage, it lacks
the third function, i.e. it is non- negotiable
document of title.
• Unlike other B/L it is not subject to
Hague/Hague-Visby rules.
 Waybill v Straight B/L
• A question arises is whether a sea waybill is same
as that of the Straight Bills of Lading?

• In the past, it was considered to be one and the

same but in light of two recent judgments the
difference has been well identified.
• The Rafaela S [2005] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 347
• Voss Peer v APL Co Pte Ltd [2002] 2 Lloyd’s rep
707
• In Voss Peer case the judge said “
• A shipper who…asks for the issue of a straight bill of lading
even when an alternate of a sea waybill is available, wants to
retain some degree of control over the delivery of the goods”
• i.e to say, Straight B/L will contain the standard terms of the
carrier in reverse while sea waybill will be left blank.
• St. B/L will be issued in sets of three while waybills will not.
• Except for the fact that a straight bill of lading in only
transferable to a named consignee, it shares all other
principle characteristics of a bill of lading which waybills
don’t.
• In Rafaela S, the court tried to equate the St. B/L with
that of S1(4) of COGSA, 1971– whether such St. B/L will
constitute “ a bill og lading or similar documents of title”
• The court came to conclusion that “ it falls within the
words –” similar documents of title”
• Why- since it exhibits all the characteristics of standard
bill of lading, with the only exception of negotiability and
requires presentation of documents before delivery.
• Thus, it was held that St B/L is a document of title with
the results that Hague/Hague-Visby rules are applicable
• In the finality, in both cases, i.e. sea waybill
and st bill of lading the title to sue vests in the
consignee identified in the bill- as per S1(3) OF
COGSA 1992.
• Mate’s Receipt:
• A mate receipt is not a transfer document.
• Its main purpose is to show as evidence about the goods loaded
aboard the ship.
• Historically, as the name suggests, it was issued by the ship’s
mate who evidenced the reception of goods on board the vessel.
• Therefore, these receipts are preliminary and temporary receipts
for the goods which may later be presented to the ship owner in
exchange for the bill of lading.
• It is essential that the bill of lading is in conformity with the
mate’s receipt.
• Does the mate’s receipt has any value in
contract?
• Hector (1898) 2 Lloyd’s Rep 287-
• “Until the bill of lading is issued and
supersedes any pre-existing contract of
carriage, the contract of carriage is best
evidence of mate’s receipt.”
 Delivery Orders
• A delivery order is a document whereby the
possessor of the goods states that he will deliver
them to a named person or his assignee.
• These are not usually issued by the person in
possession of the goods but are orders from a
person with a right to direct the disposal of the
goods to the person with possession or who is
expected to obtain possession of the goods.
 Spent Bills
• A bill of lading is “spent or exhausted or
accomplished” when the goods covered by it
have been delivered to the person entitled to
delivery under the bill.
 Who is the consigner and consignee for the
purpose of contract of carriage?
• Where A is in possession of goods and contracts as a principal
or agent to send those goods to B via C, a carrier, under such
circumstances, A will be categorized as consigners.
• However, where B, the consignee personally contracts as a
principal with C, the carrier that C will collect the goods from A,
a third party and carry them to B.
• Does the mere act of delivery i.e. handing over of the goods by
A to C constitutes A as a consigner?
• In other words, is it the act of delivery to the carrier that makes
a person, consigner or is it rather the act of making the contract
of carriage whether it be as principal or agent for another?
• In most cases, the person who delivers the goods to the
carrier will also contract with him either as a principal or
agent. Therefore, no difficulty will arise in those
circumstances.
• If, however, these two functions are performed by two
separate persons, will the “deliverer” be the consigner or
will it be the contractor?
• The author Craver maintains that consigner for this
purpose should be a person who must have given
possession by delivery to a carrier of the goods to take
somewhere and deliver it to someone.
• In other words, he said a person who himself or by his agents
shipped the relevant goods or at least had an immediate right to
possession on shipment.
• By the word shipped, he meant delivered. That’s why it is the
deliverer who is the consigner.
• However, in Pyrene c. Scindia Navigation, the judge refers to the
FOB buyer rather than the seller/ deliverer as the shipper.
• In the Athanasia Comninos, it was held that what is meant by
shipper is the person who arranges for the carriage of the goods.
These cases suggest that a mere deliverer of goods to a carrier is
not sufficiently involved in the contract to constitute him as a
shipper or a consigner.
 Shipowner’s bill or Charterer’s bill
• The bill of lading that is signed or issued by the
Shipowner or its agent, will be a shipowner’s
bill of lading.
• When it is endorsed, any statutory contract
with the holder of the bill of lading will be
with the shipowner.
• In case of demise charter, where charterers
appoint the masters, it will be different.
• On the other hand, if it is signed by the
charterer or its agent it will constitute a
charterer’s bill of lading and the only implied
contract can be with the charterer.
• When indorsed, any statutory contract will be
between the charterer and the holder of the
bill of lading.
• If the bill of lading is signed by the charterer or
its servant or agents, it will still, as a general
rule amount to a shipowner’s bill of lading if
they sign ‘on behalf’ of the master. Such a
signature can bind the shipowner if the signer
has been given actual authority under the
charterparty to do so.
• Exceptionally, the bill can still be a charter’s bill
of lading, even if the charter signs on behalf of
the master. This will occur where the charter
intends to sign as to bind the charter and not
the shipowner as in case of The Okehampton
where the charterer’s agent signed the bill
above the printed words ‘el captain’ on its
front.
• [1913] P 173
• Therefore, in The Rewia [1991] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 325, CA
• It was stressed that what mattered was the intention
with which the bills of lading had been signed.
• If the C/P authorized the charterers to sign on behalf
of the master, and so bind the shipowners, no
enquiry would be made into the signer’s actual
intention: it would be presumed that they were
signing on behalf of the shipowners.
 Identity of Carrier Clauses
• To avoid uncertainty as to whether a bill is a shipwoenr’s or
charterer’s document, bill of lading frequently contains a clause
defining who is to be regarded as the “carrier” under it.
• One such clause is the “ demise clause”
• “if the ship is not owned or demise chartered by demise to the
company or line by whom the bill of lading is issued, the bill of
lading shall take effect as a contract with the owner or demise
charterer, as the case may be…….”
• This clause also presented problems for the bill of lading holder
who wishes to ascertain the identity of the contractual carrier, as
this also did not specify correctly the party who issued the bill.
• Therefore, a clearer “ identity of carrier “ clause was intoduced.
• Eg.” The contract evidenced by this bill of lading
is between the Merchant and the owner of the
vessel named herein and it is, therefore, agreed
that the said shipowner alone shall be liable……”
• Problems faced with such clauses---
• When such clauses are used in the rear of the
B/L which then conflicts with contradictory
statements on the front of the bill of lading as to
the identity of the contractual carrier.
• In The Hector [1998] 2 Lloyd’s rep 287, - the court was faced with
three conflicting element in the bill of lading.
• The form of signature, i.e. attestation clause on front of the bill by
the Shipowner.
• As against this there was a clear typed identity of carrier statement
on the front of the bill that identified the charterer as the carrier.
• and the demise clause on the reverse which pointed towards to the
shipowner’s bill.
• Court held that the typed statement in front of the B/L which
pointed the charterer to be the carrier will get primacy.
• Therefore, Typed clause prevailed over Printed Clause.
• In The Felcha [1999] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 612
• Bills of Lading was issued in the form of Charterer
CPC or by agents for Charterer CPC as Carrier.
• The attestation clause immediately preceding the
signature box “In witness whereof the master or
agent of the vessel has signed these bills of lading”
• Therefore, from the front of the B/L it was dicey as to
whether the Charterer’s or S/O to be the Carrier.
• At the reverse was a Identity clause and a demise clause
both pointing towards the Shipowner to be the Carrier.
• In coming to conclusion, the court said in such situation
—” the document as a whole needs to be seen”
• “Indeed, Mr. Baker accepts that that is so and that it
requires some positive indication that the charterers are
undertaking a personal liability in contradiction to that
which appears from these various parts of the bills of
lading. ”
• Therefore, held the Shipowners as the carrier.
• In the Starsin [2003] UKHL 12
• In front-B/L were signed by the agents on behalf of the
Charterers Continental Shipping
• In reverse- 33. IDENTITY OF CARRIER The contract
evidence by this Bill of Lading is between the
merchant and owner of the vessel . . . and . . . the . . .
ship owner only shall be liable for any damage . . .
arising out of the contract of carriage.
• The Demise clause also referred the contract to be
between Shipowner and the Merchant.
• The HoL held that “
• a glance at the face of the bill was enough to show
that the master had not signed the bill; it had
instead been signed by agents for CPS which was
described as "The Carrier"; if the carrier was plainly
identified by the language on the front of the
document, one never got to the demise clause on
the back; the language on the front simply took
priority and no attempt at reconciliation was needed
• Therefore,
• Hector- Typed clause took priority over printed
clauses.
• The Felcha- I case of doubt, the document as a
whole should be read and the intention of the
parties should be given effect.
• The Starsin- If it is evident from the front of the
B/L, one need not go to the reverse to verify the
Carrier.
• Note:-
• The material on the reverse of the B/L will
however be significant where there are
conflicting indications in the front of the B/L
ie. Both are typed and/or printed.
 Functions
• 1. Acts as a receipt of the goods.
• 2. Evidences the contract of carriage.
• 3. Document of title.
 Hague/Visby Rules
• Get a print out copy without fail.
 Functions of B/L
• The shipper will generally obtain a copy of the Carrier’s B/L
and enter the details of the type and quantity of goods
shipped, together with any relevant marks and will specify
the port of destination and the name of the consignee.
• On receipt of the completed bill, the carrier’s agent will
check the cargo details against the tallies at the time of
loading and if correct will acknowledge them if so
requested.
• Master will then sign the bill and release it to the shipper in
return of the mate’s receipt.
• The B/L is issued in number of three set.
 Receipt for Goods shipped
• The bill normally contains the statement as to
quantity and description of the goods shipped
together with the condition in which they were
received by the carrier.
• Such description of facts are important for the
following reasons:
• 1. They form the basis of any cargo claim by the
receiver should the goods be short delivered or
damaged on discharge
• 2. Where goods had been sold C.I.F, under the terms of
which contract payment had to be made against delievery
of documents, the buyer was entitled to reject the
documents if the descriptions of the goods in the B/L did
not correspond with their description in the sales invoice.
i.e in good order and condition.
• 3. Such statements of facts might seriously affect the
negotiability of the bills in the hands of a consignee, since
the goods will not readily be saleable in transit if the bill
disclosed that they had been shipped in a damaged
condition.
• It is therefore, important for the shipper or consignee that the carrier
should be required to make accurate and unambiguous statements as to
the quantity and condition of the goods shipped.
• In absence, burden to prove the condition lies on the consignee.
• Now, normally it is true that such statements are entered into by the
shipper, therefore in order to protect the agents Principle, he adds in the
B/L--- “ Weight, quantity and conditions unknown” or : on shippers
count” before his signature.
• Remember, such qualification reduces the evidentiary value so far as the
shipper is concerned- The Atlas [1996] 1 lloyd’s Rep 642
• Because of the strong position of the Carrier in such a situation, Art III
rule 3 of HVR entitles the shipper to demand the issue of a B/L
containing certain specified information: See the Act.
• In return, the shipper, is deemed to have “
guaranteed” the accuracy of any information
supplied by him in writing for incorporation in the
bill. – Art III rule 5 and is required to indemnify the
carrier against all loss arising in the event of
inaccuracies.
• Remember, a Carrier is under no obligation to issue
a bill containing such information unless specifically
requested by the shipper- The Mata K [1998] 2
Lloyd’s Rep 614
• And if he has reasonable grounds to believe that
the info given is inaccurate or he had no means
to check the details, he can refuse giving the bill-
The Esmeralda [1988] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 206
• Remember, such statements in a bill of lading
shall be prima facie evidence of the receipt by
the carrier of the goods , but conclusive evidence
against him once the bill has been transferred to
a 3rd party acting in good faith- Art III rule 4.
• If the carrier does not fulfill the obligation under Art III rule 3 w.r.t
the B/L, what can be done?
• The natural reaction of the shipper would be to invoke Art III rule
8 and declare such expression “ Weight Unknown” as null and
void and of no effect.
• But Clarke J, expressed in The Mata K,-OBITER- that the operation
of rule 8 was restricted to contractual provisions under Art III, i.e.
breaches to rule 1 & 2.
• The inclusion of provision “ weight unknown” does not have the
effect of relieving the carrier from such a liability . It merely
means…. That the provisions of Art III rule 4 as to prima facie
evidence cannot come into effect.
 A. Receipt as to quantity
• Position at common law:
• In the hands of shipper, the B/L is prima facie evidence
at common law of the weight and quantity of goods
shipped.
• To avoid liability, the carrier has the burden of proving
that the goods were not shipped as stated in the bill.
• He must in fact, prove that the goods were not in fact
shipped and not a mere possibility.
• Smith V Bedouin steam navifation co [1896] AC 70- see
wilson Pg 120
• In this case, 988 bales of jute had been
delivered under a bill of lading which stated
that 1000 bales had been shipped, Judge
indicated that for the carrier to succeed, “the
evidence must be sufficient to lead the
inference not merely that the goods may
possibly not have shipped but that in point of
fact they were not shipped.”
• A shipowner could escape liabilty, even towards a bonafide transferee of the
bill for value, if he could establish that the goods were not in fact shipped.
• Now, here by estopple, the shipowner should not be able to escape liability
but Grant V Norway [1851] 10 CB 665 changed the scene by holding that the
master in such case has no ostensible authority to bind the owner by such
statement in the bill. – see pg 120 and 121
• In the case, the bills showed that 12 bales of silk was shipped, but in fact it
was never loaded. The court held that in such a case, the indorsee had no
remedy when in actuality no bales were shipped.
• Then what remedy is there for the indorsee?- He can then sue the master for
damages to cover any loss resulting from the breach of warranty of authority
in making the statement- Rasnoimport V Guthrie & Co- [1966] 1 Lloyd’s rep 1
• To get around this anomaly – HVR Art III Rule 4 was given effect.
 Contracting out
• As parties have the freedom of contract at common law,
the ship owner can destroy even the prima facie
evidentiary effect of a representation of quantity in the
bill by a suitable endorsement such as “weight and
quantity unknown ”, “set to weigh 50 tones “.
• Where the quantity of cargo written in the bill conflicts
with the printed clause to the effect that the “weight etc
unknown” the normal interpretation adopted by the
courts is that the figure appearing on the bill is merely a
statement made by the shipper which has not been
verified by the ship owner.
• New Chinese Antimony Co. Ltd. v Ocean steamship
Co. – [1917] 2 KB 664
• In this case, a bill of lading covering a cargo of
antimony oxide stated that 937 tones had been
shipped. In the body of the bill was a printed clause
in ordinary type to the effect that “weight,
measurement, contents and value unknown”
• Held that the written statement in the bill did not
provide even prima facie evidence of the quantity
shipped.
• According to the judge the true effect of this bill
of lading is that the words “weight unknown”
have the effect of a statement by the ship owner’s
agent that he has received a quantity of ore which
the shipper’s representative says that it weighs
937 tones but, which he doesn’t accept as being
of that weight, the weight being unknown to him
and that he accepts the weight of 937 tones only
for the purpose of calculating freight.
POSITION UNDER THE HAGUE/VISBY RULES

• Article III Rule 3 provides that shipper can

demand the carrier to issue a bill of lading
showing “ either the number of packages or
pieces or the quantity or weight as furnished by
the shipper in writing”.
• Until shipper requests, the carrier is not bound
to provide the bills of lading.
• Under such situation, the consignee will have
no right to demand compliance of the rule
• The carrier can therfore, choose any of the three methods to
acknowledge the receipt of goods and he is not obliged to
acknowledge more than one.
• Therefore, in Oricon v Intergraan- [1967] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 82 the bills
of lading acknowledged the receipt of 2000 packages of copra
cake “said to weigh gross 105,000 kg for the purposes of
calculative freight only”.
• Judge held that while each of the bills of lading being Hague rules
bills of lading it acknowledged the number of packages shipped
and are prima facie evidence of those numbers but not of the
weight of the goods shipped. In these circumstances the burden
of proof rests with the consignee to establish the weight.
• Therefore whether HVR applies, the principles
in Grant v Norway is excluded- The Nea Tyhi
[1982]1 Lloyd’s Rep 606
 B. Receipt as to condition
• This deals with a representation made by the ship
owner as to the condition in which goods were
shipped. (Cf The Galatia) [1980] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 453
• This refers merely to their apparent condition in
so far as the carrier or his agent is able to judge
by reasonable outward inspection. Therefore in
case of containers the bill of lading is evidence as
to the outward appearance of the container and
not to the condition of the goods inside.
• In practice, since shippers are generally
financed by the banks, they would want that
the ship owner sign them a ” clean bill of
lading “ i.e. a bill containing an unqualified
statement that the goods were shipped in
“good order and condition”.
• See- Compania Naveria Vascongada v
Churchill- [1906] 1 KB 237- see pg 124 wilson
 At common law
• It acts as a conclusive proof against the indorsee by
estoppel.
• In Compania Naviera Vascongada v Churchill- where
timber became badly stained with petroleum while
awaiting shipment, the master nevertheless issued a bill
acknowledging that the timber had been shipped in good
order and condition.
• Held- the S/O, were estopped as against an assignee of
the bill from denying the truth of the statement for he has
acted based on the statement the shipowner has given.
• The estopple rule in common law, will only be effective in
respect of defects which would be apparent on a
reasonable inspection by the carrier or agent.
• See- Silver v Ocean Steamship Co –[1930] 1 KB 416---pg
124 Wilson
• Held: While the shipowners were estopped from
contending either the cargo was insufficiently packed or
that the tins were gashed on shipment but they were not
estopped from alleging that pin-hole perforations in the
tins were present on shipment, since the later would not
necessarily be apparent on a reasonable inspection.
• The Peter der Grosse- [1875] 1 PD 414- Weight and contents unknown is an
acknowledgement by the shipowner of what has been told to him by the
shipper, on the other hand, condition of goods is something he inspects
and it should be construed strictly.
• In the case, a marginal indorsement to the effect that ‘weight, contents and
value unknown’ did not displace a positive statement in the bill that the
goods were shipped in good order and condition. ( therefore, a clear
statement by the shipowner that goods are shipped in good order and
condition will overide any printed clause in the body of the B/L that the
state of goods on shipment was unknown)
• But if shipowner finds the goods damaged on shipment, he can make a
marginal endorsement but it is ambiguous to found an estopple-Eg. Canada
& Dominion Sugar Co ltd v Canadian National Steamships Ltd- [1947] AC
46----pg 125 wilson
• Under the HVR since it’s a conclusive proof
against the consignee, although the master can
enter marginal endorsements on the bill to
indicate the actual conditions of the truth but
he is not allowed to introduce clauses which
will relieve him from the obligations under
Article III of the HVR.
• See a US case: Tokyo Marine and Fire Ins. Co. v
Retla steamship Co. See pg 126 of Wilson
• In this case, which invloved the shipment of a cargo of galvanised and
ungalvanised pipes from yokohama to Los Angelos.
• Despite the fact that rust and wetness was noted on the tallysheets and
mate’s receipt, a clean bill of lading was issued.
• The bill however, incorporated a qualifying clause to the effect that “
apparent good order and condition when used in this bill…does not mean
that the goods, when received were free to visible rust or moisture.
• If shipper so request a substitute bill omitting such clause will be issued.
The Shipper did not ask for a substitute bill.
• Court held that the consignee was caught by the qualification which was
not invalid under the Hague Rules.
• But if shipper had requested, then HVR would have made such clause null
and void.
• Because of commercial pressure, shipowners are
pressurized to issue clean bill against which an
letter of indemnity will generally be issued.
• Remember, such letter of indemnity will not
protect the shipowner, if the sole object was to
defraud the consignee or the bank. –Brown,
Jenkinson and Co Ltd V Percy Dalton.
• Similar provision is present under Art III rule 5 of
HVR.
 Receipt as to Leading Marks
• Any Identification or quality marks appearing
on the goods shipped will normally be
recorded iin the bill.
• The shipowner will not, however, be estopped
at common law from denying that goods were
shipped under the marks as described in the
bill unless such marks are essential to their
identity or description.
• Parsons v New Zealand Shipping Co-
• A consignment of frozen caracasses of lamb had been exported
from New Zealand under a bill stated that 608 Carcasses had been
shipped, each bearing the leading mark 622X.
• In fact, 507 carcasses bore such marks but remaining 101 carried
the mark 522X.
• On arrival of the cargo, the indorsees for value were estopped
from denying that all 608 carcasses shipped bore the 622X mark.
• The judge held that all the carcasses were of equal quality and
value and that the seller had merely attached the marks for their
own bookkeeping purposes. And held as marks were not material
to the identity of the goods, there was no estoppel.