Task description & requirements Assignment Question On 12th March 2017, a farm in Tasmania,
Backyard Poultry, sold frozen chicken to Kai Bo Supermarket in Hong Kong at a CIF price of
US$25,000 in total. Backyard Poultry arranged with ABC Line Limited to ship these frozen chicken on
board the ship Grand Tasmania. The ship agent on behalf of the Master of the Grand Tasmania
issued a set of three bills of lading dated 14th March 2017 to Backyard Poultry. These bills of lading
contain in Clause 2 the “General Paramount Clause” in the following terms: “The Hague Rules
contained in the International Convention for the Unification of certain rules relating to Bills of
Lading, dated Brussels the 25th August 1924 as enacted in the country of shipment shall apply to this
contract. When no such enactment is in force in the country of shipment, the corresponding
legislation of the country of destination shall apply, but in respect of shipments to which no such
enactments are compulsorily applicable, the terms of the said Convention shall apply”. Clause 3 of
the bills of lading further provided: “This Bill of Lading is subject to Hong Kong law and practice. Any
dispute arising from this contract shall be submitted to the exclusive jurisdiction of the High Court in
Hong Kong”. Box 2 of these bills of lading bore the name of theconsignee, “To Kai Bo Supermarket”.
Backyard Poultry endorsed these bills of lading to Kai Bo Supermarket and sent them by courier. The
bills of lading arrived at the office of Kai Bo Supermarket in Hong Kong on 20th March 2017. These
frozen chicken arrived in Hong Kong on 31st March 2017. Upon arrival of the frozen chicken at the
Modern Terminal in Hong Kong, a Mr Cheung, represented himself as a staff of Kai Bo Supermarket,
but without a bill of lading in his hand, came to collect all these frozen chicken. ABC Line Limited
released the goods to him. Around late afternoon on the same day, a Mr Yeung, an authorised
representative of Kai Bo Supermarket with a bill of lading in his hand came to ask ABC Line Limited to
release the goods. ABC Line Limited informed Mr Yeung that it had released the goods to Mr
Cheung. Kai Bo Supermarket found itself in difficulty as it had promised to deliver such frozen
chicken to the buyer in the People’s Republic of China under a separate sale and purchase
a Kai Bo Supermarket’s entitlement to sue ABC Line Limited before a court in Australia [10 Marks]
b Potential liability of ABC Line Limited [10 Marks] The discussion must:
(a) Be framed in terms of likely legal consequences if the matter proceeded to trial and discuss all
potential arguments raised by the factual matrix.
(b) Propose its contentions by reference to relevant decided case law.
(c) Be written in the third person. Accordingly, sentences should read like: “It is a legal principle…”,
“The courts have stated that…” Likewise, you should also impersonate yourself in writing. Hence,
sentences should read: “In the writer’s opinion…” or “From the writer’s point of view…”
(d) Utilise the MLM essay format. In using the MLM essay format, the discussion should be organised
as follows: Cover Page Abstract Table of Contents Introduction Body of Opinion References Page As
to the body of the opinion, the approach to be applied is the IRAC approach:
The whole report describes the case that presents the various kinds of delivery disputes. It also presents the various kinds of regulatory framework that help to analysis the various cases related to the delivery disputes in an effective manner.
Place Order For A Top Grade Assignment Now
We have some amazing discount offers running for the studentsPlace Your Order
The Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) and the Federal Court rules 2011(Cth) renders that the cases related to Assisted Dispute Resolution (ADR) can be solved by the Australian Courts of law (Maraist, Galligan Jr, Marist & Sutherland, 2016). Kai Bo Supermarket's posses' full rights to sue ABC Line Limited before a court of law and get justice and compensation in regards to the loss of the parcel. Kai Bo Supermarket also claimed for the recompense amount that the company had to pay on non-delivery of the parcel to the concerned party.
(a) When the case is registered in the Court, the Court possess the rights to check the authenticity of the case and on non-compliance, with the case, the Court can take the case back. The Court verifies the billing document presented by Mr. Yeung and summons ABC Line Limited for non-compliance with the Australian law related to shipment and delivery. The ABC Line Limited is summoned with charges of misconduct and mistreatment to Kai Bo Supermarket which has hampered the image and goodwill of the company (Hil & Kulkarni, 2017). The Court summons that ABC Line Limited is liable to pay for the compensation amount which the Kai Bo Supermarket had to pay to the consumer on the delivery of parcel along with the loss that the company suffered due to payment to the manufacturer. The Court summons that ABC Line Limited is liable to pay the additional compensation amount for hampering the image and goodwill of Kai Bo Supermarket.
(b) From the writer point of view, the primary question to be asked is whether the ABC Line Limited checked for the rending of the bill or not. The next question may be why ABC Line Limited did give the parcel to Mr. Cheung when he supposedly cited himself as the representative of Kai Bo Supermarket without procurement of the original bill. The next question may be was the ABC Line Limited aware or not aware of the regulations of the Australian law related to shipment and delivery. The question arises that upon the ignorance of the directives what made ABC Line Limited render parcel to Mr. Cheung (Frumer, Friedman & Sklaren, 2016). The next probable question is that what steps Kai Bo Supermarket must take to get back the losses which it suffering due to loss of order from the consumer and procurement of material from the manufacturer. The Kai Bo Supermarket may also charge for a reduction in image and goodwill of the company which has been impacted by the nondelivery of the parcel by ABC Line Limited.
Books and journals
Frumer, L. R., Friedman, M. I., & Sklaren, C. S. (2016). Is the Action Time-Barred? Raising or Avoiding the Defense of the Statute of Limitation or Statute of Repose (Vol. 4). Products Liability.
Hill, C., & Kulkarni, Y. (2017). Maritime law. Taylor & Francis.
Maraist, F. L., Galligan Jr, T. C., Maraist, C. M., & Sutherland, D. A. (2016). Cases and Materials on Maritime Law. West Academic.
Schoenbaum, T. (2016). Admiralty and Maritime Law. West Academic.