Defective condition of goods on Inspection Certificate

ATIFM · Post by **ATIFM** » Mon Feb 14, 2005 12:00 am

LC calls for an Inspection Certificate in Duplicate- The inspection certificate shows a part of goods are defective- Is this a discrepancy.

NigelHolt · Post by **NigelHolt** » Mon Feb 14, 2005 12:00 am

Atif,

See Opinion R339, point 4 and -if you can track it down- para 285 of Commercial Banking Co of Sydney v Jalsard Pty Ltd [1973] AC279, PC (a (UK) Privy Council decision) which suggests point 4 of R339 would enjoy judicial support in England & many Commonwealth countries.

Regards, Jeremy

JudithAutié · Post by **JudithAutié** » Tue Feb 15, 2005 12:00 am

This reminds me of a set of documents I had covering a shipment of meat. The inspection certificate said that the "goods are unfit for human consumption". I was, of course, very upset about that and immediately called the issuing bank saying that I could not refuse the certificate on the grounds of that statement, since the DC did not stipulate anything other than presentation of an Inspection Certificate. Fortunately it was ok, because the goods were in fact for animal feed -- apparently they were not unsanitary but had too much fat and gristle to be used in human food, so all was well that ended well.
That experience does lead me to emphasize the necessity of being precise in DC wording of documents every time I get a chance to give a talk to our correspondents.

Regards
Judith

larryBacon · Post by **larryBacon** » Tue Feb 15, 2005 12:00 am

Atif,

welcome to the Discussion Forum.

I agree that there is no discrepancy. Judith makes a good point which underlies assumptions about goods specified being of high quality, whereas sometimes the buyer sets out to buy goods of inferior quality as they suit his purpose at an attractive price.

Laurence