1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156 
Delivery Clause N Safeguard
Page 55
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
ABUYER of goods cannot rely on a clause in a contract reading: Proof of delivery will only be accepted when a delivery, note is signed by the company's receiving clerk." This is made clear by a decision reached by the Court of Appeal last week.
The buyers were appealing against the judgment of Judge Andrews at Bow County Court on April 29, when he decided that a consignment of boxes sent by the sellers to the premises of the buyers had in fact been delivered.
The sellers' case was that when the driver arrived at the buyers' premises with his load there was no one there . to take delivery, so he unloaded the consignment and drove his vehicle away. Pleading protection from liability by the clause cited, the buyers said they did not receive the boxes and refused to pay for them.
Dismissing the appeal, the Court held that as it had been proved., that the boxes were delivered, the only question was the effect of the delivery clause.
Whilst holding that the parties might, between themselves, agree that a signed delivery note should be a condition for payment, such a clause in a contract could not oust the ordinary jurisdiction of the courts.
The appeal, which was heard by the Master of the Rolls, Lord Justice Birket, and Lord Justice Romer, concerned E. and D. Thomas and H. S. Alper and Sons, Ltd.