Talk:Freight claim

Law Low‑importance

	Law portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Business Low‑importance

	Business portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Business, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of business articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BusinessWikipedia:WikiProject BusinessTemplate:WikiProject BusinessWikiProject Business articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Deletion[edit]

I deleted the sentence " The consignee is still required to accept the shipment, even if there is evidence of loss or damage. If the consignee does not accept the shipment they can no longer be a claimant as they are no longer party to terms of the bill of lading." because it is palpably wrong.

If the damage/loss is sufficiently serious, any consignees may reject or even cancel, but they remain the lawful holder of the bill of lading and as such may continue to enforce it: see Carriage of Goods by Sea Act 1992 ss 2 & 3. As between the carrier and the consignee, the bill of lading is a unilateral contract that the latter may exercise or not, at his own discretion.

In short: under the contract of sale a buyer has a duty to accept delivery from the seller provided the goods comply with the contract terms; but under the contract of carriage, the consignee has NO obligation to the carrier to accept delivery. Arrivisto (talk) 15:29, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]