The Timing of the Passing of Property and Risk Under the English Sale of Goods Act 1979, The
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
THE TIMING OF THE PASSING OF PROPERTY AND RISK UNDER THE ENGLISH SALE OF GOODS ACT 1979, THE CISG AND THE LIBYAN LAW– THE INTERPLAY BETWEEN THE PRINCIPLE OF PARTY AUTONOMY AND THE DEFAULT RULE A THESIS SUBMITTED TO THE UNIVERSITY OF STIRLING FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY (PhD) BY ANWAR ABOUKDIR .A. ABOUKDIR LL.B., L.LM. Based on research conducted in Stirling Law School, University of Stirling August (2016) Abstract This thesis attempts to critically and comparatively analyse the issues relating to the passing of property and risk under the United Nations Convention on the Contract for International Sale of Goods (CISG) and English Law (SGA). The passing of property and risk plays a central role in the area of international legislation in relation to sales contracts. These elements can be the most significant components in contracts of sale between parties, whether in the international or domestic field. The reason is founded on their legal nature and the close relationship between them. The passing of property and risk has been a central issue for practitioners, judges and lawyers dating back to the Roman period and several ideas have been proposed to resolve it. Where the situation is different for contracts of sale in relation to the passing of property and risk, whether in the domestic or international field, it still creates many unresolved problems, because of ongoing changes in the field of modern commerce, which may contribute to unfair implications between the parties. It has been observed in this thesis that both English law and the CISG adopt the party autonomy principle, where the intention of the parties - whether in relation to the passing of property or risk - is the basic rule. However, the difference lies in the default rules. While English law involves default substitutional rules, which apply in cases where there is an absence of an expressed or implied indication regarding the intention between the parties, the CISG lacks such default rules regarding the transfer of property, which could be viewed as its main weakness, although the CISG does involve such provisions with respect to the transfer of risk. This thesis willdiscusses, the legal nature of the rules in relation to the passing of property and risk, and the role of the party autonomy principle, and the impacts and legal difficulties that might arise through the application of these rules, whether they are default rules or based on the party autonomy principle. It will also examine the legal gaps and weaknesses of both legal systems in an attempt to identify such legal difficulties and to find appropriate solutions and remedies. II Acknowledgement I wish to express my deepest gratitude to my principal supervisor, Dr Hong-Lin Yu, who has given me endless support and encouragement. Completion of this work would not have been possible without his ideas and constructive criticisms, in addition to his tireless efforts. I am also very grateful for giving me the chance to embark on a research study which was exciting, challenging, successful and enjoyable. Thanks are also due to the staff in the Law School, University of Stirling for being keen to help always. I would like to thank my family here in Glasgow and in Libya for their understanding, encouragement, endless love, support and patience. Last, but not least, I would like to thank the Libyan Government and Libyan Cultural Affairs Bureau for their financial support. III Author’s Declaration I hereby declare that all the work in this thesis unless otherwise indicated is entirely my own contribution and was performed by me in the Law School, University of Stirling between June 2012- May 2017. Anwar A.A. Aboukdir IV Dedication I dedicate this work to my Wife Dr Fadia Gujam who supported me throughout my studies. This work is also dedicated to my lovely daughter Maryam, who dislodged the cloud and brightened my life again. V Abbreviations C&F- Cost and Freight. CFR- Cost and Freight. CIF- A Cost, Insurance and Freight. CISG- United Nations Convention on the Contract for International Sale of Goods 1980. CPT- Carriage Paid To. DAF- Delivered at Frontier. DDP- Delivered Duty Paid. EXW- Ex Works (named place of delivery). FAS- Free Alongside Ship. FOB- Free On Board. ICC- International Court of Arbitration. INCOTERMS -International Commercial Terms of the ICC, revised 2000. PECL- Principles of European Contract Law. SGA –Sale of Goods Act 1979. ULIS -Convention relating to a Uniform Law on the International Sale of Goods 1964. UN- United Nations. UNICITRAL-United Nations Commission on International Trade Law. UNIDROIT- The International Institute for the Unification of Private Law. VI List of cases B.R.K Oteshwara Rao Vs G.Rameshwri Bai AIR 2004 A.P.34. Frozen chicken case. Germany 20 November 1992 Appellate Court Karlsruhe. Wire and cable case. SWITZERLAND Appelationshof Bern 11 February 2004. Lloyd's Rep. 1 (H.L.) [1981] 2. Lloyd's Rep. 654 [1986] 2. Libyan Supreme Court no 8571, 66. 22 /12/ 1970. Libyan Supreme Court no 223, 57. 22 /11/ 1990. Arbitration International Chamber of Commerce No. 7197 1993. Arbitration Court attached to the Hungarian Chamber of and Industry, Hungary, 163.10 December 1996. Jasmine aldehyde case (Arbitration; China) 1995/01 23 February 1995. 2 U 175/95 OLG Köln OLG Oberlandesgericht Provincial Court of Appeal (Germany)1997 9 July 1997. Cantone del Ticino Tribunale d’appello, Switzerland, 253. 15 January 1998. Oberlandesgericht Oldenburg, Germany, 340, 22 September 1998. Amtsgericht Duisburg, Germany, 360. 13 April 2000. Cámara Nacional de Apelaciones en lo Comercial [Appellate Court] (Argentina) 47.448 . 1995 31 October 1995 (José Luis Monti and Bindo B. Caviglione Fraga). 5 Uncitral y.b. 92, u.n. doc. a/cn.9/ser.a/1974 Acraman v Morrice [1849] 8 C.B.449. Badische Anilin und Soda Fabrik v Hickson [1906] A.C. 419. Aldridge v. Johnson (1857) 119 E.R. 1476. VII Audiencia Provincial de Córdoba. 247. Spain Audiencia Provincial de Córdoba 31 October 1997. Astra Trust Ltd v. Adams and Williams, 1969 Lloyd's Rep. 17, 28. (1969). B.G. Fruit Market Ltd v National Fruit (1949) 59 DLR 87. Bunge v. Tradax, [1981] 2 Lloyd's Rep. 1 (H.L.). Bowes & Co v. Shand & Co [1874-80] All ER Rep 174. Bundesgericht, Switzerland, 16 December 2008, available at http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/081216s1.html. BGH VIII ZR 18/94, Feb. 15, 1995 (F.R.G.), CLOUT Case No. 124, available at http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/950215g1.html. Cockburn's Tr v. Bowe [1920] 2 SLT 17. Carlos Federspiel & Co. SA v. Charles Twigg & Co. Ltd [1957] 1 Lloyd's Rep. 240. Clarke v. Wilson [1865] 144 Eng. Rep. 450. Comptoir d'Achat et de Vente du Boerenbond Belge S/A v. Luis de Ridder Limitada (The Julia), 1949 A.C. 293 (1949). Delchi Carrier SpA v. Rotorex Corp., 71 F. 3d 1024 - Court of Appeals, 2nd Circuit 1995. Demby Hamilton & Co Ltd v. Barden [1949] 1 All ER 435. Dennant v. Skinner and Collom [1948] 2 K.B.164. Donaghy's Rope and Twine Co Ltd v. Wight, Stephenson Co (1906) 25 NZLR641. District Court (Bezirksgericht) of Saane 20 February 1997 [T.171/95] available at http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/970220s1.html. Federal Arbitration Court for the Northwestern Circuit, Russian Federation, 3 June 2003, (Russian Federation) (Dmitriev V.V. (chairman), Zubareva N.A. and Kocherova L.I. (judges)). available at http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/030603r1.html. Germany Bundesgerichtshof [Federal Supreme Court] 9 January 2002, available online at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/020109g1.html. VIII Germany Landgericht [Lower Court] Kehl 6 October 1995, available online at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/951006g1.html. Live sheep case. Germany Oberlandesgericht Schleswig 22 August 2002 Germany 16 January 1992 Appellate Court Koblenz (Motor yacht case): available at http://cisgw3 law.pace.edu/cases/920116g1.html. Groom v. Barber [1915] 1 K.B. 316.. Hanson v. Meyer (1805) 6 East 614. Head v. Tattersall. (1871-72) L.R. 7 Ex. 7. Healy v. Howlett & Sons [1917] 1 K.B. 337. Hendy Lennox Ltd. V. Grahame Puttick Ltd. (1984) 2 All ER 152. Hinde v. Whitehouse (1806) 7 East 558. ICA Arbitral Tribunal 2/1995, May 11, 1997. ICC Arbitration case n.7197 of 1992. Jenner v. Smith (1869) LR 4 CP 270. Jewson Ltd. v. Kelly, 2003 E.W.C.A. Civ 1030 (2003). Joseph Reid Pty Ltd. v. Schultz 338 JQAT.(1949). Karlshamns Oljefabriker v. Eastport Navigation Corp [1982] 1 All ER 208. Kursell v. Timber Operators [1927] 1 K.B. 298. Kwei Tek Chao v. British Traders and Shippers Ltd., 1954 Q.B.2 459 (1954). Landgericht Bamberg, Germany, 23 October 2006 (Plants case), available on the Internet at http://cisgw3.law. pace.edu/cases/061023g1.html. Law & Bonar Limited v. British American Tobacco Company Limited [1916] 2 KB 605. Lord Eldon v. Hedley Bros [1935] 2 KB 1. Lusograin v. Bunge, [1986] 2 Lloyd's Rep. 654; IX Martineau v. Kitching [1872] LR 7 QB 436, 456. Margarine Union GmbH v. Cambay Prince Steamship Co. Ltd., 1969 Q.B.1 219 (1969). Miller v. Miller, (Ky) 296 SW2d 684. Mischeff v. Springett [1942] 2 All E.R. 349, 352. Oberlandesgericht Hamm, Germany, 338, 23 June 1998. Available at http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cisg/wais/db/cases2/980623g1.html. Oberlandesgericht Karlsruhe, Germany 317, 20 November 1992. Oberlandesgericht Koblenz, 16 January 1992, n. 5 U 534/91, in Recht der Internationalen Winschaft (1992)1019. Oberlandesgericht Köln, 283 Germany, 9 July 1997. Oberster Gerichtshof (Supreme Court) 15 October 1998 CLOUT case No. 240, Austria available online at http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/981015a3.html.