Jeremy,
please see my earlier posting regarding the dictionary definition of defect as "a lack of something necessary for completeness".
In my opinion, marks are an integral part of the packaging and the lack thereof is a defect as the packaging is incomplete.
Laurence
Restrictive BL
-
larryBacon
- Posts: 689
- Joined: Fri Apr 05, 2019 5:26 pm
Restrictive BL
Laurence,
I did see it, before my latest posting. The point is I cannot accept the conclusion you seem to draw from it, i.e. ‘marks are an integral part of the packaging and the lack thereof is a defect as the packaging is incomplete’, which therefore makes it a breach of sub-Article 32a. As it would so often appear in these matters, I believe -with regret- we will just have to agree to disagree.
Regards, Jeremy.
I did see it, before my latest posting. The point is I cannot accept the conclusion you seem to draw from it, i.e. ‘marks are an integral part of the packaging and the lack thereof is a defect as the packaging is incomplete’, which therefore makes it a breach of sub-Article 32a. As it would so often appear in these matters, I believe -with regret- we will just have to agree to disagree.
Regards, Jeremy.
Restrictive BL
Hello all,
Here’s a blast from the past.
I was reading ‘Law of Banker’ Commercial Credits’ on the train the other day. Apparently the case of Banque de l’Indochine et de Suez SA v J.H. Rayner (Mincing Lane) Ltd (1983) not only confirmed a banker does not need to have any knowledge of particular trades, but also dealt with a bill of lading stamped ‘not portmarked, vessel not responsible for incorrect delivery. Any extra expense incurred in consequence to be borne by consignee’.
I imagine discussion forum participants would be interested to learn that, according to the author, the Court of Appeal did not consider the bladings breached the credit provisions or UCP.
Jeremy
[edited 8/16/02 1:36:27 PM]
Here’s a blast from the past.
I was reading ‘Law of Banker’ Commercial Credits’ on the train the other day. Apparently the case of Banque de l’Indochine et de Suez SA v J.H. Rayner (Mincing Lane) Ltd (1983) not only confirmed a banker does not need to have any knowledge of particular trades, but also dealt with a bill of lading stamped ‘not portmarked, vessel not responsible for incorrect delivery. Any extra expense incurred in consequence to be borne by consignee’.
I imagine discussion forum participants would be interested to learn that, according to the author, the Court of Appeal did not consider the bladings breached the credit provisions or UCP.
Jeremy
[edited 8/16/02 1:36:27 PM]
Restrictive BL
Jeremy,
ENGLISH LAW CANNOT GO EVEN TO SCOTLAND AND IRELAND
You cannot rely on one single English case to determine a big issue. Please tell us why some of the judicial decisions are reversed in the appeals? And why an USA court would give an opposite judicial decision to an English case, for example, the Santander on negotiation of deferred payment DC where the fraud is uncovered before payment maturity date?
Although the Head of State is the Queen, yet Canadians are more influenced by the USA that affects our economy more as the biggest investor and biggest buyer of Canadian products.
English law is not so welcome in Scotland and Ireland too.
IN 1983 BANKS DON’T HAVE eUCP AND IT
The judicial decision of the English case you have quoted is dated 1983 and only applicable to a narrow aspect of document examination. It cannot be and it is also dangerous to generalize this judicial decision.
DON’T GENERALIZE
We remember one message a law professor from a Chinese University gave us in the last session of a commercial law course. He said:” Now you know commercial law and the precedent cases. But I have to warn you. Don’t generalize them or you would be even worst than you don’t know law at all!”
www.tolee.com
[edited 8/16/02 4:40:21 PM]
ENGLISH LAW CANNOT GO EVEN TO SCOTLAND AND IRELAND
You cannot rely on one single English case to determine a big issue. Please tell us why some of the judicial decisions are reversed in the appeals? And why an USA court would give an opposite judicial decision to an English case, for example, the Santander on negotiation of deferred payment DC where the fraud is uncovered before payment maturity date?
Although the Head of State is the Queen, yet Canadians are more influenced by the USA that affects our economy more as the biggest investor and biggest buyer of Canadian products.
English law is not so welcome in Scotland and Ireland too.
IN 1983 BANKS DON’T HAVE eUCP AND IT
The judicial decision of the English case you have quoted is dated 1983 and only applicable to a narrow aspect of document examination. It cannot be and it is also dangerous to generalize this judicial decision.
DON’T GENERALIZE
We remember one message a law professor from a Chinese University gave us in the last session of a commercial law course. He said:” Now you know commercial law and the precedent cases. But I have to warn you. Don’t generalize them or you would be even worst than you don’t know law at all!”
www.tolee.com
[edited 8/16/02 4:40:21 PM]
Restrictive BL
T.O.,
You seem to have taken this the wrong way. I was not trying to make a point; merely posting information that I thought would be of interest to discussion forum members.
Hope you had a calming weekend.
Jeremy
You seem to have taken this the wrong way. I was not trying to make a point; merely posting information that I thought would be of interest to discussion forum members.
Hope you had a calming weekend.
Jeremy
-
larryBacon
- Posts: 689
- Joined: Fri Apr 05, 2019 5:26 pm
Restrictive BL
Jeremy,
would you regard the B/L in the case cited as "clean" ?
Laurence
would you regard the B/L in the case cited as "clean" ?
Laurence
-
larryBacon
- Posts: 689
- Joined: Fri Apr 05, 2019 5:26 pm
Restrictive BL
T.O.,
I am not sure exactly what you mean by English law not being welcome in Scotland & Ireland.
In the case of Scotland, English law is not comparable, as it is founded on a different basis.
In the case of Ireland, at the foundation of the State, it was found to be expedient to copy the majority of English law, with obvious exceptions such as incorporating a bill of rights (this does not exist in English law), the head of State, role of the government etc. The main reason for this was speed and the familiarity of English law in Ireland. Simply because of the difference in size, there are far more cases tried under English law than Irish. If a case tried in Ireland seeks legal precedent, it is not unusual to acknowledge such precedence from other countries with a basis of Common Law. Thus English, American or other legal cases may be cited, but the Irish court may or may not be swayed by such precedent.
The previous Irish law (Brehon law) I think went back to the 8th century, but was abolished upon the conquest of Ireland and was never re-established.
Laurence
I am not sure exactly what you mean by English law not being welcome in Scotland & Ireland.
In the case of Scotland, English law is not comparable, as it is founded on a different basis.
In the case of Ireland, at the foundation of the State, it was found to be expedient to copy the majority of English law, with obvious exceptions such as incorporating a bill of rights (this does not exist in English law), the head of State, role of the government etc. The main reason for this was speed and the familiarity of English law in Ireland. Simply because of the difference in size, there are far more cases tried under English law than Irish. If a case tried in Ireland seeks legal precedent, it is not unusual to acknowledge such precedence from other countries with a basis of Common Law. Thus English, American or other legal cases may be cited, but the Irish court may or may not be swayed by such precedent.
The previous Irish law (Brehon law) I think went back to the 8th century, but was abolished upon the conquest of Ireland and was never re-established.
Laurence
Restrictive BL
Laurence
Yes, within meaning of sub-Article 32a. I’d prefer not to re-open debate on this one, but appreciate you’re perfectly at liberty to do so with others.
Jeremy
Yes, within meaning of sub-Article 32a. I’d prefer not to re-open debate on this one, but appreciate you’re perfectly at liberty to do so with others.
Jeremy
Restrictive BL
Laurence,
As advised by Jeremy, we should not dwell on this legal issue. Another reason is that we are not lawyers and hence better confine ourselves to our scope of expertise.
WE MADE OUR COMMENTS BASED ON HISTORICAL FACTS
When we comment that English law is not welcome in Scotland and Ireland, we actually reflect what we heard and felt when we visited Scotland and Ireland. The people there seem not like England very much due to historical reasons. Sir Sean Connelly refused to go to London to be knighted and insisted that the Queen should come to Scotland if England was serious about it.
For Ireland we heard that the Governor (however named) from England at that time refused to report the famine (caused by black potatoes) to England and as a result many Irish people died.
WE MAY USE THINGS WE DON’T LIIKE
Influenced by such stories we made such comment. If Scotland and Ireland don't like England, they should not like the English law. However, it does not mean that they would not use it. For the same reason, we don’t like some UCP 500 Articles but we have to use them. Please do not try to interpret it in a broader sense.
www.tolee.com
[edited 8/19/02 4:39:10 PM]
As advised by Jeremy, we should not dwell on this legal issue. Another reason is that we are not lawyers and hence better confine ourselves to our scope of expertise.
WE MADE OUR COMMENTS BASED ON HISTORICAL FACTS
When we comment that English law is not welcome in Scotland and Ireland, we actually reflect what we heard and felt when we visited Scotland and Ireland. The people there seem not like England very much due to historical reasons. Sir Sean Connelly refused to go to London to be knighted and insisted that the Queen should come to Scotland if England was serious about it.
For Ireland we heard that the Governor (however named) from England at that time refused to report the famine (caused by black potatoes) to England and as a result many Irish people died.
WE MAY USE THINGS WE DON’T LIIKE
Influenced by such stories we made such comment. If Scotland and Ireland don't like England, they should not like the English law. However, it does not mean that they would not use it. For the same reason, we don’t like some UCP 500 Articles but we have to use them. Please do not try to interpret it in a broader sense.
www.tolee.com
[edited 8/19/02 4:39:10 PM]
-
larryBacon
- Posts: 689
- Joined: Fri Apr 05, 2019 5:26 pm
Restrictive BL
T.O.,
thank you for the clarification. As I indicated earlier, your posting could be interpreted in more than one way.
Your view of the relationship between England & Ireland, as with Scotland & England is quite simplistic. There are wide varieties of views on these subjects. You have certainly encountered some of them, but it would appear not all. As with many other issues, it is often the case that the most extreme views are the most vociferous. This does not necessarily indicate the (silent) majority opinion. As someone who has lived for many years in both Britain & Ireland, it is perhaps easier for me to take a more balanced view. On either side of the Irish sea you will find extremist or racist views, but this does not deter right-minded people seeking equitable solutions to problems, including lawyers examining comparable laws in other countries.
Do we have any Scottish contributors who would like to comment on the relationship with England (a) especially with respect to the recent political changes (b) in comparing Scottish & English commercial law ?
Laurence
[edited 8/20/02 11:15:27 AM]
thank you for the clarification. As I indicated earlier, your posting could be interpreted in more than one way.
Your view of the relationship between England & Ireland, as with Scotland & England is quite simplistic. There are wide varieties of views on these subjects. You have certainly encountered some of them, but it would appear not all. As with many other issues, it is often the case that the most extreme views are the most vociferous. This does not necessarily indicate the (silent) majority opinion. As someone who has lived for many years in both Britain & Ireland, it is perhaps easier for me to take a more balanced view. On either side of the Irish sea you will find extremist or racist views, but this does not deter right-minded people seeking equitable solutions to problems, including lawyers examining comparable laws in other countries.
Do we have any Scottish contributors who would like to comment on the relationship with England (a) especially with respect to the recent political changes (b) in comparing Scottish & English commercial law ?
Laurence
[edited 8/20/02 11:15:27 AM]