required a freight prepaid bill of lading in letter of credit –in FOB by default, that is not bill of lading that buyer can demand - so buyer opened a non-conforming letter of credit by requiring freight prepaid bill of lading - was seller justified in refusing to ship goods because buyer opened non-conforming letter of credit? oHeld yes –seller protested about non-conforming letter of credit only once –question was, does the fact that the seller did not persist with his complaint with a non-conforming letter of credit, seller now lost right to refuse to ship the goods? oHeld seller’s silent conduct did not mean the seller had lost his right torefuse to ship the goods oDiscussion again of Panchaud decision = approach was it didn’t introduce any new doctrine –and doctrine was rationalised either as acceptance under s35, or as being based on principle of estoppel –and silent conduct was not treated as causing loss of remedy So both these cases show cautious approach to Panchaud case Distributing prohibited | Downloaded by Jesslyn Meads ([email protected])lOMoARcPSD|1921809
4. What is the meaning and function of the notion of ‘acceptance’? What is its relationship with the buyer’s right to examine goods? 1) Where the buyer intimates to seller that buyer has accepted the goods – s35 (1) (a) 2) Where the buyer commits an act which is inconsistent with the ownership of the seller – s35 (1) (b) o Precondition for 1) and 2) – for them to be applicable, buyer must have had a reasonable opportunity to examine the goods provided the goods have been delivered – s35 (2) 3) s35 (4) = the buyer is also deemed to have accepted the goods, when after the lapse of a reasonable time, buyer retains the goods without intimating to seller that he has rejected the goods – not subject to s35 (2) but issue whether buyer has had reasonable opportunity to examine goods, is relevant to the calculation of a reasonable time (s35 (5)) 5. What constitutes an ‘act inconsistent with the ownership of the seller’?