Court of Appeal, Singapore

Chao Hick Tin JA, Tan Lee Meng J

27 August; 3 October 2002

KEYWORDS

Bill of Lading – Straight Consigned Bill – Although similar to Seaway Bill, still has characteristics of Bill of Lading other than negotiability – Delivery without Presentation of Bill not permissible, unless allowed by clear words – Misdelivery – Conversion

FACTS AND DECISION

A motor car was shipped by a seller after the buyer paid the downpayment. The shipowner issued a straight consigned bill naming the buyer as the consignee. The bill was handed to the seller as the shipper.

While the seller still retained the bill, as the buyer has not paid, the shipowner delivered the car to the buyer. Thus the seller sued the shipowner for misdelivery.

The court held that it was a misdelivery for the shipowner to deliver without presentaion of the bill, although it was a straight consigned bill, and held the shipowner liable for conversion. 

The court explained that a straight bill of lading, although similar in some aspects to seaway bill, essentially retains other characteristics of a bill of lading except that it is not negotiable like order or bearer bills. The court further said that the fact that a bill of lading was issued must mean that the parties intended delivery against presentation of the bill, unless otherwise said by clear words.

The decision was made summarily.

OBSERVATION

This decision is in line with The Rafaela S [2005] UKHL 11.

Overview by ARUN KASI