Summary of the case1
Rules of law:2
Kopitoff v Wilson  1 QBD 3772
Conclusion: non-negotiable bills of lading to their shippers and retain the originals. Terms on the reverse side of the originals which are not on the non-negotiable bills may not apply.3
Present two judgements and Answer the question: which one you prefer and why?3
Summary of the case
This is a claim between PT Soonlee Metalindo Perkasa vs. Synergy Shipping PTE LTD. It is taken by High court of Singapore in 27 July 2007. It is determined by Judge Judith Prakash. The defendant, Synergy Shipping, contracted as a carrier to carry 1,300 deformed steel bars owned by the plaintiff, PT Soonlee, from Singapore to Batam, Indonesia. The goods were carried on deck on the barge Limin XIX, which was owned by a third party, Freighter Services. Limin XIX was towed by the tug Fajar Putra. The vessels departed Singapore on March 21 2005 at 5:50pm; by midnight, most of the goods had been lost overboard. PT Soonlee sued Synergy for the loss of its goods and Synergy claimed an indemnity against Freighter Services as the third-party owner. The goods were carried under a bill of lading issued by Synergy Shipping. The bill was endorsed on the front and back with the words "shipped on deck at shipper's risk". On the back of the bill was Clause 9(c), which expressly excluded "liability for any loss, damage or expense connected with deck cargo howsoever caused and whether due to negligence, unseaworthiness or otherwise". Both sides also bore Clause 64(c), which limited liability to £100 a package. However, PT Soonlee never received or saw an original bill of lading; as was its practice, Synergy kept the original and sent a non-negotiable copy to PT Soonlee's agent. The back of the non-negotiable...