Search results for: privity

Authors: Eunice Chiamaka Allen-Ngbale

Abstract:

Prior to bill of lading (BOL), merchants travelled along with their goods; then recorded the goods in the ship’s mates’ register; and finally started selling the goods while in transit by way of BOL, indicative that BOL is negotiable. Common law doctrine of privity of contract did not allow the transfer of right to sue to a non-party to the contract. This created hardship to cargo owners, which made many jurisdictions enact laws in this regard. Bill of Lading Act 1855 (BLA) was enacted in the United Kingdom, which applied as statute of general application under section 375 Merchant Shipping Act 1990 (MSA) in Nigeria; and conferred contractual rights of the suit on consignees and endorsees, but on the passing of ownership upon or by reason of such consignment or endorsement on the shipment of the goods simultaneously. The repeal of section 375 MSA by section 439 MSA 2007 created a lacuna, and the doctrine of privity of contract is the extant law in Nigeria. The aim of this study is to evaluate laws governing the transfer of the contractual right of suit to a third party under the bill of lading in Nigeria. The specific objectives of this study are to ascertain: (i) whether the extant law of common law doctrine of privity of the contract covers the transfer of the right of suit to the third party under the bill of lading in Nigeria; (ii) impediment(s) of the common law to transfer such right in Nigeria in the absence of any legislation; (iii) the level of applicability of the doctrine of privity of contract as it relates to transfer of the contractual right of suit to third party under the bill of lading in Nigeria; and (iv) whether to proffer possible suggestion on how to fill the lacuna left by the repeal of Merchant Shipping Act 1990. This work adopted a doctrinal approach with reliance on primary and secondary source materials. It finds that the common law doctrine of privity of contract in Nigeria is retrogressive. This work recommends for amendment of the relevant statute to cure this defect/lacuna like other commonwealth nations for best international practices.

Keywords: contract of carriage by sea, doctrine of privity of contract, lawful holder of bill of lading, third party right of suit

Procedia PDF Downloads 144

Authors: David Gibbs-Kneller

Abstract:

Only parties to a contract can enforce it. This is the privity of the contract. Carriage contracts frequently involve intermediated relationships. While the carrier and cargo-owner will agree on a contract for carriage, there is no privity or consideration between the cargo-owner and third parties. To overcome this, the contract utilizes ‘bailment on terms’ or the rule in Morris. Morris v C W Martin & Sons Ltd is authority for the following: A sub-bailee and bailor may rely on terms of a bailment where the bailor has consented to sub-bailment “on terms”. Bailment on terms can play a significant part in making litigation decisions and determining liability. It is used in standard form contracts and courts have also strived to find consent to bailment on terms in agreements so as to avoid the consequences of privity of contract. However, what this paper exposes is the false legal basis for this model. Lord Denning gave an account adumbrated of the law of bailments to justify the rule in Morris. What Lord Denning was really doing was objecting to the doctrine of privity. To do so, he wrongly asserted there was a lacuna in law that meant third parties could not avail themselves upon terms of a contract. Next, he provided a false analogy between purely contractual rights and possessory liens. Finally, he gave accounts of authorities to say they supported the rule in Morris when they did not. Surprisingly, subsequent case law on the point has not properly engaged with this reasoning. The Pioneer Container held that since the rule in Morris lay in bailments, the decision is not dependent on the doctrine of privity. Yet the basis for this statement was Morris. Once these reasons have been discounted, all bailment on terms rests on is the claim that the law of bailments is an independent source of law. Bailment on terms should not be retained, for it is contrary to established principles in the law of property, tort, and contract. That undermines the certainty of those principles by risking their collapse because there is nothing that keeps bailment on terms within the confines of bailments only. As such, bailment on terms is not good law and should not be used in standard form contracts or by the courts as a means of determining liability. If bailment on terms is a pragmatic rule to retain, it is recommended that rules governing carriage contracts should be amended.

Keywords: bailment, carriage of goods, contract law, privity

Procedia PDF Downloads 174