This is because, between the seller of the goods and the buyer of exchange, the delivery of the bill of lading is by way of pledge, and the security of the buyer of exchange is, until acceptance by the buyer on delivery to them of the documents, the liability of the seller as drawer of the bill of exchange with the bill of lading as collateral security. However, the invoice, that normally debits the buyer with the agreed price is required partly to identify the goods sold with the goods shipped and insured to complete the record of the transaction and to show the price of the goods and to enable the buyer to raise money on their security more easily.
The liquidator applied to have the assignment set aside. The Chancery Division allowed the application as, on the evidence, the assignment had been fraudulently backdated and was automatically avoided under the Insolvency Acts IA What were the facts in this case? Mr Gopee alleged this was done by a written assignment which he says is dated 31 March The assignment provided as follows: The assignment was executed by Mr Gopee alone on behalf of all the various companies.
This was a first instance decision of Chief Justice Pratt sitting in Middlesex Assizes where he had to direct a jury in a trover case. His apprentice pretended to weigh it but removed the stones instead. The goldsmith offered three halfpence for the ring.
This was refused and the goldsmith returned the ring but without the stones. Several jewels were examined to prove what a jewel of the finest water that would fit the socket would be worth.
The jury determined damages in accordance with this direction that the value of the missing stones was of the finest water. The liquidator had produced a schedule of debts owned by BFL. Mr Gopee was asked to verify this and failed to do so.
The judge applied the principle in Armory v Delamirie which meant that he resolved any evidential doubts against Mr Gopee. Mr Gopee produced no evidence to substantiate this but rather the evidence is that Mr Gopee had pursued the debtors for payment.
What did the trial judge find? On 15 DecemberDeputy Registrar Briggs gave directions that any evidence on which Mr Gopee relied was to be served by 23 February No evidence was served until Mr Gopee had not made an application for an extension of time.
Mr Gopee sought to serve a four-page typed witness statement with pages of documents exhibited. The trial judge refused to permit Mr Gopee to rely on either his statement or the documents exhibited.
In relation to relief from sanctions, the judge ruled that:This entry about Kelner V.
Baxter has been published under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY ) licence, which permits unrestricted use and reproduction, provided the author or authors of the Kelner V. Baxter entry and the Encyclopedia of Law are in each case credited as the source of the Kelner V. Baxter entry.
Principles of Commercial Law Second Edition CP Cavendish Publishing Limited London • Sydney EDITORIAL ADVISORY BOARD PRINCIPLES OF LAW SERIES PROFESSOR PAUL DOBSON Visiting Professor at Anglia Polytechnic University PROFESSOR NIGEL GRAVELLS Professor of English Law, Nottingham University PROFESSOR PHILLIP KENNY Professor and Head of the Law School, .
Keighley, Maxsted & Co v Durant  AC Chapter 5. Relevant facts. Keighley, Maxsted and Co (‘KMC’) authorised an agent, Roberts, to buy wheat on a joint account for him and them at a certain price.
Roberts was unable to buy wheat at the price he was authorised to do . Keighley, Maxted& Co v Durant (Corn merchant brought higher priced wheat on behalf of KMC) Koufos v Czarnikow Ltd (Sugar was meant to be deliverd in 20 days, however took 10 days longer. During these 10 days the price of sugar fell and the deliverer had to pay the difference).
If An Undisclosed Principal] Exists It Is, To Say The Least, Extremely Convenient That He Should Be Able To Sue And Be Sued As A Principal, And He Is Only Allowed To Do So Upon Terms Which Exclude Injustice” - Keighley, Maxsted & Co.
V. Durant  AC (HL), Per Lord Lindley. Keighley Maxted v Durant - did not brought the name of the principle - the principle could not ratify the action iv.
There must be competence principle at the time the ultra-vires act was done and at the time it was to be ratify Case: Ghappel Co. Ltd v Nestle Co. Ltd 2) Consideration must be real and off-value.