Asfar and Co V Blundell (1896)

Topics: Shipping, Cargo, Transport Pages: 3 (981 words) Published: October 10, 2010
Asfar and Co v Blundell (1896) 1 QB 123 Court of Appeal (Lord Esher MR, Lopes and Kay LJJ) Dates no longer merchantable as dates
A vessel, on board which dates had been shipped, was sunk during the course of the voyage, and subsequently raised. On arrival at the port of discharge it was found that, although the dates still retained the appearance of dates, and although they were of some value for the purpose of distillation into spirit, they were so impregnated with sewage and in such a condition of fermentation that there had been a total loss of cargo. Held

‘The cargo owners’ claim would be successful.
Lord Esher MR:
‘We are dealing with dates as a subject-matter of business, the nature of thing has been altered. The nature of a thing is not necessarily altered because the thing itself has been damaged but if it becomes for business purposes something else so as to become an unmerchantable thing, which no buyer would buy and no honest seller would sell, then there is a total loss of bill of lading freight on these dates…’ Group Tutorial Questions

Q1. Explain in your own words the facts of the case.
Q2. Explain the decision of the court.
Q3. Explain the reason behind such a decision.
Q4. Which type of carriage of goods used in this case?
Q5. Which Malaysian Act would have been appropriate to be applied in this case? Instructions:
1. Each members have to answer one part/question
2. Must be handwritten( We are Type and E-mail to her)
3. Must end the answer by using prepared by name and ID
4. Must be submitted personally to lecturer

Q1. Explain in your own words the facts of the case.
On board vessel had been shipped for commerce purpose. Unfortunately, it was sunk during the voyage and subsequently raised. On the arrival at the port of discharge, they found that, the dates remain the appearance dates which means they have no delay on shipping the cargo. However, the cargo was ferment because it had impregnated with sewage for...
Continue Reading

Please join StudyMode to read the full document

You May Also Find These Documents Helpful

  • Essay about Chappell & Co Ltd v The Nestlé Co Ltd
  • Essay on BlackBerry v. Co-founders Buyout
  • Essay on Williams Construction Co. V. Oshrc
  • Salomon v A Salomon & Co Ltd Essay
  • Septimus V Heartless Enterprise Co Essay
  • Byrne & Co v. Tienhoven & Co Essay
  • V Essay
  • Leonard V Pepsi Co. Essay

Become a StudyMode Member

Sign Up - It's Free