Commercial Law Case Study Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 2500 words

Commercial Law - Case Study ExampleWhen a company accepts to tranship the goods of a shipper, they must take due care in ensuring that the goods are shipped in time and reach the owner in good order and condition, which Andys vessel company failed to ensure. The company failed to take due care of the goods entrusted to it. Edith skunk hold back his freight charges, which she was entitled to pay for the discharge of goods until such a time when the matter is settled and thereafter pay for the discharge of the goods.In this case, Barry is absolved from any ability since he played his role by enduring all the three bills of lading to Edith, which shows that ownership has changed. The freight payable to the despatch company by Edith should be held by her until the matter is settled. Liability solely lies to the company since it is apparent good order and condition. This means that they were rail atd while on tranship.To conclude, Edith has to sue the shipment company Andys vessel for the loss caused to her arising from damage caused so her arising from the damage caused to her goods. In this case, she should leave the goods in possession of the shipment company until her declare is full settled and discharged.From the point or rule three above, the shipment company is liable to tranship and after reaching the destination, they will not be liable. In other words they accept liability of goods while on tranship. Same way problem or damage was d i while on tranship. The damage caused resulting to loss by Edith has to be compensated for since liability arises as per the rules of the carrier. Edith can sue the carrier for the reckless of her cases. Barry should have complied with all the formalities in ensuring that the goods were despatched in good order and in time but the carrier, company had the dispatched the goods in good form only to reach Edith damaged.A similar case study is that of Tool Metal Manufactures Co Ltd v Tungsten Electric Co Ltd (House of Lords) In April 1938 the appellant made a contract with the respondent whereby they gave they gave the respondents a independence to import, make, use and sell hand metal alloys in accordance with the patent rights held by them. The respondents were to pay royalties on the materials made and compensation if in any one month they sold more than the stated quantity of the alloys. In 1942, following the outbreak of the Second World War, the appellants voluntarily agreed to suspend their right to compensation, it cosmos contemplated that a new agreement would be entered into.In 1944, negotiations for a new contract begun but broke down and, in 1945, the respondents sued the appellants (inter alias) for breach of contract and the appellants counter-claimed for hire of compensation as from June 1 1945. The respondents action was dismissed. Regarding the counter-claims, the Court of appellants counter-claimed for payment of compensation as from June 1 1945. The respondents action was dismisse d. Regarding the counter-claim, the Court of Appeal held that the agreement of 1942 operated in