HYUNDAI MERCHANT MARINE CO. LTD. & ANOTHER v. WESCO POLYMERS LTD.

HYUNDAI MERCHANT MARINE CO. LTD. & ANOTHER v. WESCO POLYMERS LTD.

Defendant is liable: the containers were lost while in the possession or control of the defendant via its agent (satisfying clause 10(A)); the Letter of Indemnity, by its wording, covered losses indirectly arising from delivery and was supported by consideration (delivery orders issued); alternatively the defendant...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
HYUNDAI MERCHANT MARINE CO. LTD. & ANOTHER v. WESCO POLYMERS LTD.
Parties
1st Plaintiff: Hyundai Merchant Marine Co. Ltd.; 2nd Plaintiff: Hyundai Merchant Marine (Hong Kong) Ltd.; Defendant: Wesco Polymers Limited
Court
District Court
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
4 February 2002
Case Number
DCCJ2615/2001
Procedural Posture
Civil Action Maritime/container Loss (contract and Bailment) / Judgment at Trial (reasons Handed Down)
Outcome
Judgment for the Plaintiffs
Legal Topics
Seaway Bill, Letter of Indemnity, Bailment, Quasi Bailment, Agency and Possession, Consideration, Damages for Loss of Containers
Source Language
en
Maritime Law Contract Law Tort (bailment) Agency Law Commercial Law Seaway Bill Letter of Indemnity Bailment +4 more

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 5 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Hyundai Merchant Marine Co. Ltd.

1st Plaintiff

Hyundai Merchant Marine (Hong Kong) Ltd.

2nd Plaintiff

Wesco Polymers Limited

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Action Maritime/container Loss (contract and Bailment) / Judgment at Trial (reasons Handed Down)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether clause 10(A) of the Seaway Bill made the consignee liable for loss of containers
  2. 2 Whether the Letter of Indemnity covered loss of the containers and was supported by consideration
  3. 3 Whether the defendant was liable as bailee or quasi-bailee despite lack of physical possession

Ratio Decidendi

Defendant is liable: the containers were lost while in the possession or control of the defendant via its agent (satisfying clause 10(A)); the Letter of Indemnity, by its wording, covered losses indirectly arising from delivery and was supported by consideration (delivery orders issued); alternatively the defendant assumed duties of a bailee or quasi-bailee by representing it would take possession and by authorising its agent to collect, creating strict liability for the loss. Accordingly judgment for plaintiffs for the lesser claimed sum was entered and costs awarded, with indemnity costs after the Order 14 hearing.

Court Disposition

Judgment for the Plaintiffs

Orders

  • Judgment entered for the Plaintiffs in the sum of US$6,225.70
  • Defendant ordered to pay the Plaintiffs' costs of the action