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 [2008] 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 [1918] 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 difference had the contract been on FOB terms?

ANSWERS:

1. Scottish & Newcastle International Ltd v Othon Ghalanos Ltd [2008] 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.

B, the buyer (Cyprus company), failed to pay the price of the goods shipped by the S, the seller (Scottish company), from Liverpool to Limassol, in a contract of sale governed by the law of England.

The question was whether the English court had jurisdiction to entertain the action. It would have been the case if the goods were deemed delivered on shipment at Liverpool but not if the goods were deemed delivered in Limassol. This is the application of art.5(1)(a) and (b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 (“A person domiciled in a Member State may, in another Member State, be sued in matters relating to a contract, in the courts for the place of performance of the obligation in question. (…) The place of performance of the obligation in question shall be:- in the case of the sale of goods, the place in a Member State where, under the contract, the