Administrative Law and Human Rights

The first one, which is more inclined on Helen’s side began with Adam, who is a trader in London acquiring 10,000 tons of Japanese rice and loading them on Wayne’s Vessel that goes under the name of The American Enterprise. Before the goods could even reach their destination, they were destroyed by Sea water, and this is the main basis of Helen’s case as the ownership had already been exchanged from Adam to her under the terms and conditions of purchasing. On the other hand, the bottles of soy sauce that were transferred ownership to William, and because of the drop of the market price of the products, William is debating on whether to accept or reject the tendered documents from Adam.

The paper will begin by looking at Helen’s case in relation to the various laws that relate to the field and then, later on, assessing Williams’s situation and advising him appropriately. Advising Helen The product that is in question here is the rice that was destroyed on Wayne’s ship and whether she had any substantial claim against Wayne or not. Without the proper documentation, which includes a purchasing agreement, and also the products that are being transferred ownership, or siting of them, the purchaser is inclined to refuse the transaction2. However, in this case, Adam and Helen agreed upon the exchange of ownership. The bill of lading that Adam was sent by his agent from Japan was given to Helen, which was an official confirmation of the change of ownership.

This meant that the minute that Wayne’s ship docked in Southampton, Helen had the right documentation to go and claim the goods as her own. A formal indication of the availability of a product, which can be seen in this case is sufficient in transferring ownership of the products. The insurance documents are meant to protect the carrier from paying unnecessary losses such as losses from disasters or calamities as is the case with Wayne’s ship. The rice was destroyed by sea water after the ship was hit by a storm that happened after the ship had left Yokohama. The leak was as a result of the bad fitting of the storm hatches by an independent contractor, and as such, the independent contractor could not have been sued.

In addition, the disaster was also partially to be blamed on the negligence of the independent contractor as much as it was on the natural mishap. The scenario can be compared to the Cosco Bulk Carrier Co Lt V Tianjin General Nice Coke and Chemicals Co Ltd that took place in 2017 where the shipowner was taken to court in relation to his ship colliding at sea and being considered unseaworthy. Similar to the other transit, he was given bills of lading that indicated that Wayne had received the goods in good order, meaning that the safety of the goods had been transferred to Wayne during the transit. The only difference, in this case, was that Adam was given three identical bills of lading.

The freight was agreed to be paid on discharge, and he exchanged the ownership of the product to William, who upon full sale price was given, two duly indorsed bills of lading, a certificate of insurance, and invoice of the full sale price. The two duly indorsed bills of lading meant that Adam partially sold the bottles to William. William being given the necessary documents meant that he was the owner of the bottles upon arrival and this was a form of contract that he was to agree upon. As for Helen, she stands a better chance of claiming her spoilt rice from Wayne since the goods were destroyed in the hands of the carrier while in transit. Wayne was given the goods in good condition and in the right amount, and as such, anything that happened to the goods during the transit would be entirely on the carrier.