Vita Food Products Inc v Unus Shipping Co Ltd

Last updated
Vita Food Products Inc v Unus Shipping Co Ltd
Halifax explosion - Imo.jpg
Court Judicial Committee of the Privy Council
Full case name Vita Food Products Inc v Unus Shipping Company Limited in liquidation
Decided30 January 1939
Citations[1939] UKPC 7, [1939] A.C. 277 (P.C.), (1939) 63 Ll L Rep 21
Case history
Appealed from Supreme Court of Nova Scotia Flag of Nova Scotia.svg
Court membership
Judges sitting Lord Atkin, Lord Russell of Killowen, Lord Macmillan, Lord Wright, Lord Porter
Case opinions
Decision by Lord Wright
Keywords
Conflict of laws

Vita Food Products Inc v Unus Shipping Co Ltd [1939] UKPC 7, [1] is a leading decision of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council on the conflict of laws. The case stands for the proposition that an express choice of law clause in a contract should be honoured as long as the agreement was bona fide and not against public policy. The case is significant in the field of contract law, as it greatly expanded the ability of parties to choose the jurisdiction of their contacts.

Contents

Facts

Three lots of herring were accepted by the Hurry On (owned by Unus Shipping, a Nova Scotia corporation) at Middle Arm, Newfoundland for shipment to Vita Foods of New York. The bills of lading which, the judgment states, "[b]y some error or inadvertence ... were old ones used outside Newfoundland", provided for exemption from liability for master’s negligence in navigation which was allowed under the Hague Rules, which further provided that any clause or agreement in the bills of lading relieving the carrier from liability for negligence imposed by the Rules was void. There was a further provision in the bills of lading that, in the case of shipment from the United States, the Harter Act should apply and that, unless otherwise provided, the bill of lading was subject to the terms of the Canadian Water Carriage of Goods Act, 1910. Finally the bills of lading contained the following clause: "This contract shall be governed by English law."

The bills of lading for these lots did not conform to the Carriage of Goods by Sea Act 1932 (Newfoundland), which required that they contain an express clause paramount that the Hague Rules applied.

During the voyage, the ship ran into bad weather and ice off Nova Scotia and went ashore in a gale of wind. The ship was eventually set free, and made for Guysborough, where the cargo was unloaded, reconditioned and forwarded by another ship to New York, where Vita took delivery of the cargo in its damaged condition and paid for the freight.

Vita sued Unus in Nova Scotia for the damage to the cargo, salvage and other expenses. It also alleged that the Hurry On was unseaworthy, and that the bills of lading were illegal because they did not contain an express clause adopting the Hague Rules, and thus was subject to the liabilities of a common carrier. Unus, in its defence, asserted that, as the bills stated that they would be governed by English law, the Hague Rules were incorporated by reference, as they were the ones in force under the English Carriage of Goods by Sea Act 1924.

Judicial decisions

Supreme Court of Nova Scotia

In the original action before the Chief Justice, which was upheld on appeal to the Supreme Court of Nova Scotia en banc , the allegation of unseaworthiness was rejected, but it was accepted that the loss was due to the captain's negligence in navigation. The contention that the bills of lading were illegal was rejected in addition, the Court also held that if the bills of lading were held to be illegal, the parties were in pari delicto and on that ground the action must fail.

Privy Council

The Nova Scotia decision was upheld by the Privy Council, albeit for different reasons. Lord Wright, writing for the Council, noted that the following provisions of the bills in question did not apply:

Either of the above requirements would have had effect only under the principles laid out in Dobell v. Steamship Rossmore Co., [2] which were not applicable here.

He also observed that:

It is now well settled that by English law (and the law of Nova Scotia is the same) the proper law of the contract is the law which the parties intended to apply. That intention is objectively ascertained, and, if not expressed, will be presumed from the terms of the contract and the relevant surrounding circumstances.

Therefore, the Newfoundland statute did not apply as the proper law of the contract was England, and so the contract was upheld. He stated the test for determining the choice of law in such circumstances:

… in questions relating to the conflict of laws rules cannot generally be stated in absolute terms but rather as prima facie presumptions. But where the English rule that intention is the test applies, and where there is an express statement by the parties of their intention to select the law of the contract, it is difficult to see what qualifications are possible, provided the intention expressed is bona fide and legal, and provided there is no reason for avoiding the choice on the ground of public policy. Connection with English law is not as a matter of principle essential.

Significance

Much international shipping practice is based on the assumption that the choice of law by parties is supreme, and Dicey and Morris [3] have observed that "There appears to be no reported case in which an English court refused to give effect to an express selection by the parties, merely because the other facts of the case showed no connection between the contract and the chosen law." [4]

See also

Related Research Articles

The Incoterms or International Commercial Terms are a series of pre-defined commercial terms published by the International Chamber of Commerce (ICC) relating to international commercial law. Incoterms define the responsibilities of exporters and importers in the arrangement of shipments and the transfer of liability involved at various stages of the transaction. They are widely used in international commercial transactions or procurement processes and their use is encouraged by trade councils, courts and international lawyers. A series of three-letter trade terms related to common contractual sales practices, the Incoterms rules are intended primarily to clearly communicate the tasks, costs, and risks associated with the global or international transportation and delivery of goods. Incoterms inform sales contracts defining respective obligations, costs, and risks involved in the delivery of goods from the seller to the buyer, but they do not themselves conclude a contract, determine the price payable, currency or credit terms, govern contract law or define where title to goods transfers.

In a contract of carriage, the consignee is the entity who is financially responsible for the receipt of a shipment. Generally, but not always, the consignee is the same as the receiver.

Fundamental breach of contract, is a controversial concept within the common law of contract. The doctrine was, in particular, nurtured by Lord Denning, Master of the Rolls from 1962 to 1982, but it did not find favour with the House of Lords.

<i>Scruttons Ltd v Midland Silicones Ltd</i> 1961 UK House of Lords legal case

Scruttons Ltd v Midland Silicones Ltd[1961] UKHL 4, [1962] AC 446 is a leading House of Lords case on privity of contract. It was a test case in which it was sought to establish a basis upon which stevedores could claim the protection of exceptions and limitations contained in a bill of lading contract to which they were not party. The Court outlined an exception to the privity rule, known as the Lord Reid test, through agency as it applies to sub-contractors and employees seeking protection in their employers' contract.

A charterparty is a maritime contract between a shipowner and a "charterer" for the hire of either a ship for the carriage of passengers or cargo, or a yacht for leisure.

A Himalaya clause is a contractual provision expressed to be for the benefit of a third party who is not a party to the contract. Although theoretically applicable to any form of contract, most of the jurisprudence relating to Himalaya clauses relate to maritime matters, and exclusion clauses in bills of lading for the benefit of employees, crew, and agents, stevedores in particular.

<i>NZ Shipping Co Ltd v A M Satterthwaite & Co Ltd</i> 1974 decision of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council

New Zealand Shipping Co. Ltd. v. A. M. Satterthwaite & Co. Ltd., or The Eurymedon is a leading case on contract law by the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. This 1974 case establishes the conditions when a third party may seek the protection of an exclusion clause in a contract between two parties.

The Hague–Visby Rules is a set of international rules for the international carriage of goods by sea. They are a slightly updated version of the original Hague Rules which were drafted in Brussels in 1924.

Affreightment is a legal term relating to shipping.

Admiralty law in the United States is a matter of federal law.

<i>The Aramis</i>

The Aramis [1989] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 213 is an English case, relevant for the concept of an implied contract.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Deviation (law)</span>

The doctrine of deviation is a particular aspect of contracts of carriage of goods by sea. A deviation is a departure from the "agreed route" or the "usual route", and it can amount to a serious breach of contract.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Carriage of Goods By Sea Act 1992</span> United Kingdom legislation

The Carriage of Goods By Sea Act 1992 is a UK statute regarding bills for the lading of goods onto ships. It repealed the Bills of Lading Act 1855 and made new provisions.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Bill of lading</span> Document issued by a carrier (or their agent) to acknowledge receipt of cargo for shipment

A bill of lading is a document issued by a carrier to acknowledge receipt of cargo for shipment. Although the term is historically related only to carriage by sea, a bill of lading may today be used for any type of carriage of goods. Bills of lading are one of three crucial documents used in international trade to ensure that exporters receive payment and importers receive the merchandise. The other two documents are a policy of insurance and an invoice. Whereas a bill of lading is negotiable, both a policy and an invoice are assignable. In international trade outside the United States, bills of lading are distinct from waybills in that the latter are not transferable and do not confer title. Nevertheless, the UK Carriage of Goods by Sea Act 1992 grants "all rights of suit under the contract of carriage" to the lawful holder of a bill of lading, or to the consignee under a sea waybill or a ship's delivery order.

Norfolk Southern Ry. v. James N. Kirby, Pty Ltd., 543 U.S. 14 (2004), was a United States Supreme Court case that dealt with the extent to which maritime bills of lading cover non-maritime portions of a shipment, together with connected clauses for exclusion of liability.

A freight claim or cargo claim is a legal demand by a shipper or consignee against a carrier in respect of damage to a shipment, or loss thereof.

Seaworthiness is a concept that runs through maritime law in at least four contractual relationships. In a marine insurance voyage policy, the assured warrants that the vessel is seaworthy. A carrier of goods by sea owes a duty to a shipper of cargo that the vessel is seaworthy at the start of the voyage. A shipowner warrants to a charterer that the vessel under charter is seaworthy; and similarly, a shipbuilder warrants that the vessel under construction will be seaworthy.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Carriage of Goods by Sea Act 1971</span> United Kingdom legislation

The Carriage of Goods by Sea Act 1971 is a United Kingdom act of Parliament. It incorporates into English Law the Hague-Visby Rules which are to be found as the Schedule to the Act. The Act does not use the term "Hague-Visby Rules" as such; instead, the Rules are referred to in that Act as the "Hague Rules As Amended".

The law of carriage of goods by sea is a body of law that governs the rights and duties of shippers, carriers and consignees of marine cargo.

<i>Leduc v Ward</i>

Leduc v Ward is a leading English case on deviation within the law of carriage of goods by sea. The case also addresses bills of lading, and the parol evidence rule.

References

  1. Vita Food Products Inc v Unus Shipping Company Limited in liquidation [1939] UKPC 7 , [1939] A.C. 277 (P.C.), (1939) 63 Ll L Rep 21(30 January 1939), P.C. (on appeal from Nova Scotia)
  2. G.E. Dobell v. Steamship Rossmore Co., [1895] 2 Q.B. 408 (C.A. 1895), where Lord Esher stated that "[W]hat we have to do is to construe the bill of lading, reading into it as if they were written into it the words of the Act of Congress. If this is done, it will have this effect: that some provisions will appear twice over, because they have put words extremely like those of the Act into the bill of lading, and then introduced the whole of the Act. That would, of course, do no harm, but it is clumsy to the last degree."
  3. Dicey, Morris & Collins on the Conflict of Laws
  4. Dicey, Albert Venn; Morris, John Humphrey Carlile (1983). Dicey and Morris on the conflict of laws. Suppl. 2 (10 ed.). London: Stevens. p. 755. ISBN   978-0-420-45690-8. LCCN   86207912.