Собственник судна (Истец) выпустил коносамент на партию угля, которую Поставщик должен был поставить Получателю (Второму Ответчику). Фрахтователь (Первый ответчик) зафрахтовал судно. Между Поставщиком и Отправителем, который отгрузил партию угля, возник спор, в результате которого Поставщик отказался оплатить перевозку по коносаменту. Ни Получатель, ни Собственник судна об этом не знали. По прибытии судна в порт назначения его Собственник издал деливери-ордер на партию угля, который оказался некачественным. В договоре купли-продажи и чартере предусматривалось, что в отсутствие коносамента груз должен быть передан получателю против гарантийного письма, которое и было выдано Получателем Фрахтователю. Собственник судна утверждал, что он действовал как агент Фрахтователя. Суд постановил решение в пользу Истца. Гарантийное письмо было признано подлежащим исполнению в пользу Собственника судна.
Great Eastern Shipping Co Ltd v Far East Chartering Ltd
Indonesian shippers agreed to supply shipments of coal FOB to a Swiss company (the
“Company”), who sold on one of those shipments to the Second Defendant Receivers on
CIF terms. The First Defendant, the Company’s chartering arm, chartered the Claimant
Owners’ vessel to carry this shipment to India. The Owners issued bills of lading, but
disputes arose between the shippers and the Company, and the Company refused to pay to
take up the bills of lading. Neither the Owners nor the Receivers knew of the dispute at the
time.
When the vessel arrived in India, the Owners issued a delivery order to the port authority in
favour of the Receivers and the cargo was discharged. The Receivers rejected the cargo on
grounds that it was below specification. The shipper gave notice of a claim for damages
against the Owners for delivering to the Receivers without presentation of the bills of lading.
The Owners then tried to revoke the delivery order.
The Receivers eventually agreed with the Company to take the cargo at a reduced price. The
Owners had, meanwhile, obtained an injunction preventing removal of the cargo from the
port. The shippers had brought proceedings against the Owners in Singapore and obtained
judgment on liability.
The on-sale contract and voyage charter provided for the cargo to be discharged against a
LOI if the bills of lading were not available, and the Receivers had given such a LOI to the
First Defendant which extended to the latter’s servants and agents. The Owners argued that
it was able to enforce the LOI under the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 (the
“Act”), as the First Defendant had instructed it to deliver the cargo to the Receivers. As a
result, the Owners argued, it was acting as the First Defendant’s agent. The Receivers argued
that, as a matter of public policy, the Claimant could not rely on the LOI as it could not be
indemnified against its own wrongdoing, i.e. deliberate misdelivery of the cargo by either it or
the First Defendant.
The Court found in favour of the Claimant Owners. It was clear that the LOI had been
issued to the First Defendant, and as a matter of interpretation of the LOI, the issue of the
delivery order and the discharge of the cargo was sufficient to amount to delivery.
The Court held that there were no issues of public policy in this case. The Company believed
that nothing further was due to the shippers, and the Receivers had failed to establish that
the Company’s position was not genuinely held and that there was no bona fide commercial
dispute. There were no relevant acts which could be said to be manifestly unlawful, or
known to be unlawful by the parties. The goods had been delivered, and so the Owners were
entitled to enforce the LOI.
Источник: REEDSMITH
SHIPPING GROUP MONTHLY BULLETIN. – 2011. – JULY. – Р. 18 – 19.
