International Trade Law Case Note: Boerenbond Belge SA v Ridder (1949)

This case note analyzes the 1949 House of Lords case, Comptior d’Achat et de Vente du Boerenbond Belge SA v Luis de Ridder Limited, concerning an international sale of rye under a CIF contract. The analysis covers the parties involved, the facts of the case where a shipment of rye was diverted due to war, and the legal issues surrounding the buyer's claim for a refund. The case note examines the application of the Sales of Goods Act, 1983, and the interpretation of CIF contracts, particularly the requirement for a transferable document of title. The House of Lords upheld the umpire's decision, ruling that the buyer could not retrieve the payment due to the absence of a valid CIF contract, as the delivery order did not fulfill the required transfer of title. The note concludes by summarizing the key points and implications of the case for international trade law, focusing on the importance of proper documentation and consideration in CIF contracts.

International Trade Law:
Case Note

Table of Contents
INTRODUCTION...........................................................................................................................3
MAIN BODY...................................................................................................................................3
CONCLUSION................................................................................................................................7
REFERENCE...................................................................................................................................8

INTRODUCTION
The case Comptior d’Achat et de Vente du Boerenbond Belge SA v Luis de Ridder
Limited was given a final ruling in year 1948. In the present report an analysis of the case is done
in with discussing the case whole case in different sections. The sections under which the case is
investigated includes identification of the parties to case, facts related to case, the decision given
by the house of Lords over case and the issues raised and determining the application of the law
in the justice court.
MAIN BODY
CASE SUMMARY:
The case citation: <https://www.scribd.com/doc/46554645/1949-A-C-293>.
Parties to case:
Comptoir d'Achat et de Vente du Boerenbond Belge S/A- Appellant
AND
Luis de Ridder Limitada (The Julia)- Respondent
Type of court: House of Lord (Privy council)
Date of decision: 19th January 1949
Judges:
Lord Porter,
Lord Simonds,
Lord du Parcq,
Lord Normand; and
Lord MacDermott.
Facts to the case:
The seller Luis DeRidder entered into a purchase agreement with Comptoir d'Achat et de
Vente du Boerenbond Belge for purchasing a shipment of 500 tones of rye (grain). Full payment
for the shipment of 500 tones was made to the agent of Ridder for $5000 CIF (Cost, insurance
and frieght). The seller Ridder loaded 1120 tons on the ship of the rye, the Julia to ship to
Belgium. The payment was made to the agent and received the delivery order by Belgian Grain.
For delivering the goods at various steps procedure was required to be followed. The sale of the
goods was made in the transit which was on its way to Antwrep. A bill of lending was not given
to the buyer by the seller Ridder as he wanted to divide the goods that are recorded on the bill of

landing and sell it to the various buyers. If he delivers the bill of landing to the buyer he would
have been required to sell the rye to its specific buyer only. Due to war through German invasion
the ship never arrived in Antwrep and the agent of Boerenbond Van Bree did not receive any
possession of rye form the shipment that was supposed to arrive there. The ship sold the rye in
Lisob at a reduced price. After this the buyer Boerenbond demanded the $5000 back. But Ridder
would only accept to return the sum realized from selling of Rye in Lisbon. In an arbitration
dispute, Boerenbond claimed that there was a complete failure to perform on the contract. The
umpire of the arbitration dispute found that Ridder had performed under the contract because the
delivery order was delivered to Boerenbond. The court of first occurrence and the court of
appeals upheld the umpire’s ruling. Boerenbond appealed.
CASE CRITIQUES:
Issues in the case:
The circumstances of the case happened to be such where due to the war the ship have to
sell rye in Portugal instead of Belgium at a loss. Before all this happened the buyer had made an
in transit purchase of rye and paid full amount of $5000 to the agent of the seller Belgian Grain.
The agent of buyer Van bree didn't receive any of the rye and for this the buyer Boerenbond
made a claim for full refund of the amount paid by him. The issue raised in this case was that
can the buyer retrieve the whole price paid for purchasing the rye?
Decision in the case:
The decision given by the house of lords stated that amount paid by buyer $5000 is CIF.
Therefore, it as held that the seller have handed over the papers for the sales and here buyer
cannot retrieve the price paid of rye. As per the provisions of CIF contract the seller cannot
deliver the goods and commodities as per their wish rather there must be presence of a transfer of
title document. This is a document which gives tile of the goods to buyer and it was detected to
be essential requirement for CIF contracts1. For the present it was seen by the judge that the bill
of landing was non negotiable instrument thus it was non transferable. The document
required to be negotiable to be held as transferable. A deficiency of goods in context of correct
papers depicts a lack of considerations under a contrast. Here, the buyers only received the
transfer command, which was only a part of the bill of lading. The ruling of the umpire was
1 .Comptoir d'Achat et de Vente du Boerenbond Belge S/A v. Luis de Ridder Limitada
(The Julia), 2019

upheld by the house of lords and the payment of amount did not fulfill the condition of document
for transfer of the title of the goods. Therefore, the requirement of CIF contract was not met and
hence the amount was non recoverable from the seller Ridder.
Application of law in case:
Section 16 of the sales of goods act, 1983
It was found in the case by a judge that rye which was the subject matter of the contract
was not defined under section 16 of the act. The facts of the case were seen as that the parties
are required to look at the intentions to enter into a legal contract as what they wanted about the
meaning from the documents. The word CIF was not just looked by the judges in the courts and
it was not held to be a determining fact for identifying the intention of the parties. For a contract
to be a CIF contract it must posses all the essential requirement of being a contract and to be
validly binding on both the parties to contract.
The question asked in this case is that what was the consideration for which the payment
was made. For this question it was suggested that in any given fact of the case the consideration
under the contact was either actual delivery of rye or the promise to sell the on the terms that
would make available to the buyers the use rights against the ship and the insurers. The decision
of the umpire was upheld as that arbitration raised out of a contract for purchase of rye from the
seller by the buyer. The claim was not awarded any relief on the basis of failure of the
consideration. The another issue of this case was that the whether there stood a failure of the
consideration. For this it was stated by the Lord that regarding a contract as a CIF contract the
original contract stood with some alternation with not changing all the terms and conditions of
the contract including the terms related with the consideration. The buyers possessed, in the view
of judge, get into a contract for the acquisition of papers for sale or, more correctly, for the
purchase of a package of rye, the completion of which was required to be enforced by the giving
documents. The papers, by lord was considered, as a different option for the sellers, who would
complete the contract if contract is chosen to be completed at delivery rather than by bill of
lading, and a certificate in place of insurance policy. Even the tightness of these causes were
considered as reduction by the exercise of the contracting parties with the outcome that delivery
command meant an direction to their personal agents (countersigned) and an insurance
certificate which was never completed or held in position or at the direction of the buyers.

For this case the lords determined the duty and responsibilities imposed on the seller
through entreating a CIF contract includes the delivering of bill of lading which covers the
products contracts which are required for selling along with the insurance policy in the normal
from of which is accompanied by the invoice reflecting the price and deducting the freight which
is paid by the buyer at the port of discharge before the delivery. With exchange or delivery of
these documents the buyer pays the money for the shipment. For these cases the rights in the
good may pass to buyer either at tender of the contract or at the time of shipment. With passing
of the ownership the property and risk in the goods also passed on to the buyer2. In return of the
receipt the buyer after receiving the papers can claim the ship against the breach of the contract
of the shipment and for any underwritten loss or damage of the goods which are covered under
the policy. The strict formation of the CIF contract may be altered with a condition that the
delivery order might be replaced by the bill of lading but a certification of the insurance might
not. It was stated by the lord that a contract expressed as a CIF contract may not be one. For the
present case therefore it was stated that it does not hold to have a regular form of transfer order
and there was not an acceptance of insurance certificate which covered the percale to the agent of
the buyer Van Bree was a mere designation of the contract as CIF and it was not actually held as
a CIF contract. The question here also raised as weather the purchaser has got an entitlement to
the return in the policy. In this case it was held by the lord that for the give case the payment
made by the buyer done not seem to be a consideration for the contract rather it seemed to be an
advance payment for a shipment and the contract was meant to be preformed latter on the
receiving the goods.
The lord stated that thy did not see any significant a sufficient reason to support the
delivery order containing some commercial value and that the agent of buyer took any
availability by the endorsement of the documents over the goods. The documents were
understood to be mere indication that it was a mere promise already made by the seller and was
to be in the due course with performance of the contract by delivering the goods.
With this is can be stated that issues for the given case were related with formation o a
CIF contract and presents of a consideration under the contract. IT was argued by the judges that
the payment made was mere as advance and the documents did not f fulfill the requirement of
2 COMPTOIR D'ACHAT ET DE VENTE BOERENBOND BELGE S/A. AND LUIS DE
RIDDER LIMITADA, 2019

being a CIF contract. As no risk and possession was passed on to the agent of buyer upon
payment and performance of contract was to be done at the latter date at the time of receiving the
goods wherever the possession and risk world have transferred. So with this lag the payment
made failed to held as a consideration for CIF contract and it was held that the award of umpire
to be upheld and the appeal made by the claimant was rejected as buyer was no entitled to
receive any claim for payment made.
CONCLUSION
From the above report it can be concluded that a case note is prepared on a decided case
where the case is being analyzed in detail and a specif and significant information related to case
is presented in the case note. In the present report the case of internal sales in being under taken
and analyses which was decided in 1949. The case referred for the present report was Comptior
d’Achat et de Vente du Boerenbond Belge SA v Luis de Ridder Limited where an in transit
contract was made for purchase of Rye in transit of a ship and the ship did not reach to the
destination and sales were made at other place at loss. It has been found out that the ruling of e
where court was upheld by the hose of Lord for an appeal made by the appellant. The issue was
that can a buyer make a claim of the payment done in CIF contract. The decision was outlines ad
no claim was entertained as there was lack on consideration due to the non present of a
transferable document of ownership in the goods.

REFERENCE
Online
COMPTOIR D'ACHAT ET DE VENTE BOERENBOND BELGE S/A. AND LUIS DE
RIDDER LIMITADA. 2019. [Online]. Available through
:<file:///home/user/Downloads/case_1561518722.pdf>.
Comptoir d'Achat et de Vente du Boerenbond Belge S/A v. Luis de Ridder Limitada (The Julia).
2019. [Online]. Available through :<https://www.quimbee.com/cases/comptoir-d-achat-et-
de-vente-du-boerenbond-belge-s-a-v-luis-de-ridder-limitada-the-julia>.