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
Thus the intention of the seller was clearly to have “no continuing interest [in the goods] once it had been shipped” and that the buyer hence in possession of the bill of lading, could take delivery of the goods in Limassol.

However, according to Rodger the fact that the payment was due 90 days after the vessel arrived in Limassol confirms his view. On the contrary, I find that this element rather supports the defendant’s argument: if the price was to be paid x days after the shipment had left Liverpool would have been a stronger argument in favour of the claimant’s position. Mance proposes an alternative argument to reach the same conclusion as Rodger. He rather focuses on the trade documents exchanged by the parties, and also the various communications between them. Since the documents can’t help the resolution of the conflict between the parties, due to the fact that these documents are not clear about the intention of the latter, or because they apparently provide contradicting information, Mance proposes to look into letters send between the parties.

In Mance view, “Limassol” being written into box (iv), headed “Place of delivery” on the invoices “merely confirmed that the transport arranged went no