DISPUTE ON DELIVERY UNDER STRAIGHT BILLS OF LADING IssueRegulationLaw caseLesson

CONCERNING ISSUE  Is this a straight bill of lading or not?  Is there a negotiable entitle?  Could Seller issue back-delivery orders with this bill?  The right to sue the carrier belong to whom?

COMMON REGULATION ON NEGOTIABLE ENTITLE, TITLE OF OWNERSHIP U.S Law non-negotiable sea waybill No title of ownership No request submission original bill of lading in receiving But have to prove recipient identification Visby Rules Not negotiable document of title of goods Require present bills of lading in receiving goods Vietnamese Maritime Code 2005 Not negotiable person named in the straight bill of lading is the legitimate consignee B/L presentation for goods receipt

REGULATION ON DISPOSE OF THE GOODS AT UNLOADING PORT Vietnamese maritime code 2005, Article 92: The consignor has the right to dispose of the goods until the goods are returned to the legitimate consignee Where the consignor have not yet assigned these rights to others, He will have the right to discharge before the beginning other trip of the vessel, change consignees and change unloading port (with bearing other related expense arising) The carrier shall only be obliged to implement the requirements of the consignor after entirely collecting of the issued original B/L. "

REGULATION FOR TREATMENT TO DETAINED GOODS Vietnamese Maritime Code 2005, Article 94, paragraph 4 : “Within 60 days from the date of shipping to the port of delivery, if nobody receive, or the consignee fails to pay all debts or give security required, the carrier may sell the item for auction excluding debt If goods are perishable or too costly to send, the carrier could sell the goods before that period.”

LAW CASE Law case in 2007 Seller: SHCarrier: MOLBuyer: EPEShipper: TK

In late 2006, SH (SH) signed contracts to sell a container of 2,970 bags and backpacks for EPE in FOB $ 87,035 HCMC Shipping agency TK issue Straight B/L for SH in FIATA form, named EPE in consignee box, but in the front page Aticle 3.1 noted that "This BL is issued in a negotiable form unless it is marked "non-negotiable ". 6/1/2007, the consignment had come to Sydney 1/3/2007 EPE still did not take the goods. TK dealer put container into Sydney customs bonded warehouses ( kho ngoại quan của hải quan Sydney ) for processing.

04/14/2007, SH ordered to TK deliver goods back to Vietnam but TK did not follow that order 14/05/2007, EPE come to the bonded warehouse to receipt the goods, but the dealer of TK did not recover the original B/L. EPE took the goods but then did not make payments for SH for the remaining amount.

SH sue TK for compensation SHTK

Judgment 1. Article 3.1 on the front side of the B/L claimed it is not a Straight B/L, which is actually To order B/L. 2. Court documents said that the purchase and sale contracts, commercial invoice, customs declaration of export of the shipment is not made clear in terms of delivery FOB Inco- term TK must compensate for SH

LESSON To order B/L still is set priority compared to Straight B/L under the careful consideration of safety TO ORDER B/L STRAIGHT B/L