Industria Tessile Ambrosiana Marra v Hydrotyte Ltd

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judgment Date: 09 July 1974
• Neutral Citation: 1965 WJSC-HC 4145
• Date: 09 July 1974
• Court: High Court

1965 WJSC-HC 4145

Industria Tessile Ambrosiana Marra v. Hydrotyte Ltd

INDUSTRIA TESSILE AMBROSIANA MARRA C.S. P.A.

.v.

HYDROTYTE LIMITED

1 Judgment of the President delivered the 9th day of July 1974

2 This is a claim by the Plaintiffs against the Defendants as Acceptors of a foreign bill of exchange for U.S. Dollars 1903.86 (equivalent to £786.71 Irish currency) dated 5th September, 1970, and drawn by the Plaintiffs at Milan upon the Defendants, payable to the Plaintiffs sixty days after sight, and accepted by the Defendants on 19th September, 1970. At the hearing it transpired that the bill was drawn on 4 September, but nothing turns on this discrepancy in date.

3 The Defendants in their Defence deny that they accepted the bill; they plead that, if they did, they did so and delivered it to the drawer without any consideration; they plead that if any consideration did pass it was after the agreed or a reasonable time, and that time was of the essence of the contract, and they plead that the bill was for payment 90 days after sight of goods in Dublin, and not 60 days after sight.

4 The Plaintiffs shipped to Dublin for the Defendants certain goods to the value of U.S. Dollars 1903.86 in or about the month of May, 1970, out the Defendants were unable to take up the necessary documents because of the Bank strike. It was subsequently arranged that new documents would be sent, and would be accepted by the Defendants, on terms that the goods would be accepted only as of the date of dispatch of the new documents, and that the Defendants would not be responsible for storage charges incurred at Dublin. The Plaintiffs, having agreed to these terms, sent fresh documents to First National City Bank in Dublin including the bill already mentioned for acceptance by the Defendants. The Defendants accepted the bill on 19 October (not September) 1970 and were handed certain documents by the First National City Bank.

5 The goods had been shipped to Irish Shipping agents who were not the agents of the Defendants but of the Plaintiffs, and had been held to the order of the said agents. The documents which were handed over to the Defendants purported to be the documents which would enable the Defendants to obtain delivery of the goods, and the Defendants duly handed over these documents to the shipping agents already mentioned. It then transpired that the Plaintiffs had not sent with the goods, or with the documents, a certificate of origin of the goods in the form required by the Irish customs authorities, in order to enable the goods to be imported.

6 Under the Control of...