Tyzack and Branfoot Steamship Co., Ltd v. Sandeman & Sons [1913] UKHL 869 (18 July 1913)

Tyzack and Branfoot Steamship Co., Ltd v. Sandeman & Sons [1913] UKHL 869 (18 July 1913)

Shipowners failed to deliver the specific goods consigned under the bills of lading and did not prove that the missing bales were among the unidentifiable bales; thus, they are not entitled to freight for undelivered goods, and consignees are entitled to set off the value of the missing bales against the freight claimed.

Citation
[1913] UKHL 869
Parties
Plaintiff/respondent: Tyzack and Branfoot Steamship Company, Limited; Defendant/appellant: Sandeman & Sons
Jurisdiction
United Kingdom
Judgment Date
18 July 1913
Procedural Posture
Commercial Shipping Dispute (freight Claim and Counterclaim) / Appeal to House of Lords From Second Division of Court of Session
Outcome
Appeal allowed; judgment of Second Division reversed; Sheriff-Substitute's decision restored.
Legal Topics
Bill of Lading, Short Delivery, Freight, Exemptions, Identification of Goods, Burden of Proof, Counterclaim
Shipping Law Contract Law Bill of Lading Short Delivery Freight Exemptions Identification of Goods Burden of Proof +1 more

Case Brief

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 4 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Tyzack and Branfoot Steamship Company, Limited

Plaintiff/respondent

Sandeman & Sons

Defendant/appellant

Procedural Posture

Commercial Shipping Dispute (freight Claim and Counterclaim) / Appeal to House of Lords From Second Division of Court of Session

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether consignees are bound to accept unidentifiable bales as part of their consignment in case of short delivery
  2. 2 Whether shipowners are entitled to freight for undelivered goods under the bill of lading
  3. 3 Whether contractual exemptions in the bill of lading protect shipowners from liability for short delivery

Ratio Decidendi

Shipowners failed to deliver the specific goods consigned under the bills of lading and did not prove that the missing bales were among the unidentifiable bales; thus, they are not entitled to freight for undelivered goods, and consignees are entitled to set off the value of the missing bales against the freight claimed.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; judgment of Second Division reversed; Sheriff-Substitute's decision restored.

Orders

  • Respondents not entitled to freight for undelivered bales.
  • Appellants entitled to deduct value of 6 bales short-delivered from freight due.