Read the two cases below and look up a response to the questions following each case.
This forum is intended as a place for you to raise issues or questions which may arise when you are undertaking this exercise. This forum will be open until the end of the Christmas break. 1. Scottish & Newcastle International Ltd v Othon Ghalanos Ltd  UKHL 11 Why was the contract considered to be an FOB contract in this case? Compare speeches of Rodger LJ and Mance LJ regarding time of delivery. 2. The Parchim  AC 157 Why was it so important to determine whether property had passed in this case? What considerations did the court take into account in making the determination? Do you consider that it would have made any…show more content… According to the defendant, Limassol was the place of delivery agreed for contractually, mainly because “Limassol” was written into box (iv), headed “Place of delivery”, on the invoices. The English court held that it had jurisdiction to entertain the action and the Court of Appeal rejected the defendant’s appeal. The House of Lords confirmed the decision of the Court of Appeal.
In order to reach this conclusion, Rodger’s argument focuses on whether the goods were delivered to the Cypriot buyer, via his agent, in Liverpool, or not until the goods were delivered to the buyer itself in Limassol. By a combined reference to s.61(1) of the SoGA 1979 (i.e. delivery is a transfer of possession from one person to another) and s.32(1) of the same (i.e. delivery of the goods to a carrier is prima facie deemed to be delivery of the goods to the buyer), Rodger finds that the performance of the obligation referred to in art.5(1)(b) aforementioned took place where the goods were delivered to the buyer in Liverpool. In the case at hand the goods were actually delivered to a carrier designated by the buyer; besides, the price of freight was also determined by agreement between the buyer and the carrier’s Cypriot agent. Thus Rodger concludes that prima facie the delivery