636 



HORTICULTURE 



December 28, 1918 



I 



IMPORTANT SHIPPING DECISIONS 



WHEN GOODS REACH YOU IN BAD 

 CONDITION. 



Dayton, Ohio. 



I have been reading certain articles 

 from your pen regarding goods sold 

 f o. b. the shipper's station, and goods 

 sold delivered to the buyer, as to the 

 difference which this made In the 

 cases where the goods were lost or 

 damaged, and making claims on the 

 railroad, etc., and have a case now 

 which bears on that to some extent. 

 It you think it would be interesting 

 enough, I would like to have you 

 notice it in your column. 



I ordered some goods from a Chi- 

 cago jobber about one month ago. The 

 terms were sight draft, bill of lading 

 attached. The goods were delayed 

 and consequently the draft got to the 

 bank and was presented to me, before 

 the goods arrived. Thinking it all 

 right, I paid the draft, but the goods 

 did not arrive for ten days after. 

 When they arrived ' I had them ex- 

 amined and found they were In bad 

 condition, and refused to receive them. 

 As the shipper also refused to receive 

 them back, the railroad sold them for 

 the freight charges. I have paid for 

 these goods, but have nothing to show 

 for it. The shipper refuses to give 

 my money back, claiming that the 

 goods were all right when delivered 

 to the railroad for shipment to me, 

 and that title passed to me when the 

 goods were delivered to the railroad, 

 therefore, after that the loss is mine. 

 They say I must sue the railroad 

 company to collect my damages. It 

 has taught me a lesson never to pay 

 for goods before seeing them again, 

 but I should like to know where I 

 stand in this case, as I have about 

 1500 tied up. R. G. 



My judgment is that this corres- 

 pondent can probably not recover hla 

 money from the Chicago jobber. While 

 It Is well settled in the law that every 

 buyer of merchandise is entitled to a 

 reasonable time to inspect the goods 

 before his right of rejection is gone, 

 nevertheless, if the goods were all 

 right when delivered to the railroad, 

 the fault Is the railroad's and not the 

 shipper's. 



But if it cannot be proven that the 

 goods were all right when delivered 

 to the railroad, the buyer can reject 

 when they reach him. If he finds they 

 are In bad shape. This rule Is not 

 affected by the fact that technically 

 title may have passed to him upon de- 

 livery to the railroad. Let me clarify 

 that by an Illustration: A, a retailer 

 in Springfield, 111., buys goods of B, 

 a Chicago jobber, f. o. b. the shipper's 

 station. Under the law, title to those 

 goods passes to A, the buyer, at the 

 instant B delivers them to the rail- 

 road, and after that the goods are his 



and the risk of loss or damage is his. 

 As I have before explained, if they 

 are lost or damaged, B can still com- 

 pel A to pay in full. The goods reach 

 A's town and the railroad company 

 notifies A they are there. A has had 

 no chance to inspect then^ before, and 

 he now inspects them, finding that 

 they are in bad condition and not 

 usable for his purpose. He rejects 

 them and refuses to pay, in spite of 

 the fact that title passed to him upon 

 B's delivery to the railroad. If he Is 

 sued by the seller, the question 

 whether he will have to pay will de- 

 pend on 



1. Whether the goods were in bad 

 shape when they reached him, and 

 particularly 



2. Whether they were in bad shape 

 when delivered to the railroad. 



If both these questions are decided 

 in the aflirmatlve, the court will say 

 he need not pay. If No. 1 is decided 

 in the affirmative, he will still have to 

 pay If No. 2 Is decided in the negative. 



Let me quote on this point from a 

 leading case:- — 



The general rule is that a delivery 

 of goods to a carrier (railroad), pur- 

 suant to a contract of sale, is a deliv- 

 ery to the buyer sufficient to pass title 

 to the goods, and the carrier at once 

 becomes the agent of the buyer. 

 Braunn vs. Keally, 146 Pa. 519; Perl- 

 man vs. Sartorius & Co., 162 Pa. 

 320; to whom the latter must look 

 for resulting damages while the 

 goods are in transit: Dannemiller vs. 

 Kirkpatrick, 201 Pa. 218. Conse- 

 quently, in absence of circumstances 

 indicating a contrary Intent, if de- 

 fendant (the shipper) in the present 

 case delivered the meat to the carrier 

 in good condition, properly packed 

 and refrigerated, in view of the dis- 

 tance it must travel, and gave proper 

 Instructions as to re-retrigeratlon if 

 needed in the course of transit, defend- 

 ant's duty was fully performed and Its 

 responsibility ended on such delivery, 

 and it was no longer concerned In the 

 question of delay or damage on deliv- 

 ery: United Fruit Co. vs. Blsese, 25 Pa. 

 Superior Ct. 170. Even though we as- 

 sume title passed upon delivery to the 

 carrier, the contract was still subject 

 to cancellation up to the time of de- 

 livery and inspection unless an op- 

 portunity to Inspect was given before 

 delivery. The only opportunity avail- 

 able for this purpose was on its ar- 

 rival at plaintiff's place of business, 

 and not until that time could its con- 

 dition be ascertained. Upon reaching 

 Its destination plaintiff was entitled 

 to a reasonable opportunity to inspect, 

 and having done so without delay and 

 discovered the shipment to be In an 

 Impossible condition and not In ac- 

 cordance with the guaranty, it was 

 justified In refusing to accept; and 



upon giving prompt notice of such re- 

 fusal, the meat was held by the rail- 

 road company at the risk of the 

 shipper. 



In the case I quote from, however, 

 there was no evidence that the goods 

 were in perfect condition when de- 

 livered to the railroad. If there had 

 been such evidence, the ruling would 

 doubtless have been different. 



It seems a little Inconsistent to say 

 that the buyer can reject the goods 

 after they have become his, but It 

 really is not, for unless inspection has 

 been made before shipment, which la 

 almost never done, title passes to the 

 buyer, under the law, subject to the 

 buyer's right, it he finds the goods In 

 bad condition, to throw the title back 

 again. 



But — this is an important exception 

 and I, therefore, repeat it — if the 

 seller could show that they were in 

 good condition and as ordered when 

 delivered to the railroad, he could 

 compel the buyer to pay for them, and 

 the latter in that case would have to 

 get his damages from the railroad. In 

 other words, the law will not make 

 the shipper pay for damages which he 

 did not cause. 



DECISION WORTH REMEMBERING 

 A case has just been decided by 

 the Appeal Court of Pennsylvania 

 which directly involves the law con- 

 trolling the shipment of goods from 

 State to State, as it exists every- 

 where. Therefore, while it was the 

 decision of a State Court, it repre- 

 sents the law all over the United 

 States. 



The case has to do with the proper 

 manner of making claims on railroads 

 for lost or damaged goods. As all 

 readers hereof probably know, every 

 shipment of freight over a railroad is 

 represented by a bill of lading, which 

 is given by the railroad to the shipper 

 and contains the terms and conditions 

 of the contract of shipment. The rail- 

 road, the consignor and the consignee 

 are all bound by whatever is in the 

 bill of lading. 



The uniform bill of lading which is 

 now in use practically everywhere, 

 contains the following as to the time 

 and manner of presenting claims for 

 lost or damaged goods: — 



Claims must be made in writing to the 

 carrier at the point of delivery or at the 

 piiint of origin within four months after 

 delivery ot the property, or In case of 

 failure to make delivery, then within four 

 months after a reasonable time for de- 

 livery has elapsed. 



Many a claim has been lost because 



