Ads
related to: poor representation by attorney bill of ladingbill-of-lading-template.pdffiller.com has been visited by 1M+ users in the past month
Search results
Results From The WOW.Com Content Network
Before reaching Dunkirk, the master deviated to Scotland where the ship sank in a storm off the mouth of the River Clyde. When the cargo-owner (the indorsee of the bill of lading) sued, the shipowners sought to rely on the perils of the sea exception in the bill. When it was pointed out that deviation annuls such protection, the shipowners ...
The case concerned the question whether a contract could be implied between the transferee of a bill of lading to whom the goods had been delivered and the carrier. Prior to the Carriage of Goods By Sea Act 1992 the implication of such a contract was necessary if the transferee and the carrier were to have rights enforceable between themselves in respect of, for example, damage to the goods or ...
Grant v Norway (1851) [1] is a case on the Law of Carriage of Goods by Sea; but since 1992 it has no longer been good law.. This was an action upon the case by the indorsees of a bill of lading, against the owners of a vessel, to recover the amount of advances made by the former upon the bills of lading, the goods never having in fact been shipped.
An electronic bill of lading (or eB/L) is the legal and functional equivalent of a paper bill of lading. [27] An electronic bill of lading must replicate the core functions of a paper bill of lading, [28] namely its functions as a receipt, as evidence of or containing the contract of carriage and as a document of title. [citation needed]
Attorney misconduct is unethical or illegal conduct by an attorney. Attorney misconduct may include: conflict of interest, overbilling, false or misleading statements, knowingly pursuing frivolous and meritless lawsuits, concealing evidence, abandoning a client, failing to disclose all relevant facts, arguing a position while neglecting to disclose prior law which might counter the argument ...
The bill of lading gave "liberty to call at any ports in any order". She did not proceed to Dunkirk, but headed for Glasgow, and was lost in a storm near Ailsa Craig. Just as in Glynn v Margetson , the Court of Appeal held that the deviation was unjustifiable and was not permitted by the liberty clause, so the carrier was liable for the lost ...
Mr. Malik's defense sought to utilize the doctrine of res inter alios acta to assert that the criminal proceeding couldn't be used in a civil suit to recoup the legal costs. This was because Mr. Malik been acquitted in the criminal proceeding, thus, it was a legal fact he wasn't responsible for the crime. Mr.
Lickbarrow v Mason ((1788), 2 T. R. 63 and (1794) 5 TR 683) refers to an English legal case in which it was determined that a shipped or endorsed bill of lading is a document of title at common law, i.e. a document which can be owned and therefore the ownership of it could be sold or otherwise transferred to someone else.