2,051
edits
Changes
From DMC
no edit summary
The Arbitrator found that the cargo had been loaded in a pre-existing heat damaged condition which was not reasonably visible during loading. It would, however, have been discovered by the shippers on reasonable examination. Ultimately, the Arbitrator held that Priminds was liable to Noble because the shippers, as Priminds’ agents (and hence Priminds) had impliedly warranted the accuracy of any statement as to condition contained in the Bill of Lading and/or had impliedly agreed to indemnify Noble against the consequences of the inaccuracy of any such statement.
Priminds appealed the arbitral award to the Commercial Court and succeeded in overturning the decision of the Arbitrator. [[https://www.onlinedmc.co.uk/index.php?title=Priminds_Shipping_(HK)_v_Noble_Chartering_-_The_Tai_Prize]] . Dissatisfied with the judgment, Noble appealed to the Court of Appeal.
'''Decision of the Court of Appeal'''
