Additional areas of experience include safe port and safe berth cases’ Christopher Smith QC at Essex Court Chambers is recommended, Legal 500 2013 – Professional Negligence Peers state that Christopher Smith QC’s tremendous abilities and impressive caseload currently outstrip his reputation, and are keen to put right this wrong.
The section has been held to apply not only to cases of damage, actual or constructive, done to the goods in the strict sense but also to cases of non-delivery or delay in delivery.
Unless damage, actual or constructive, is done to the goods or in other words, unless the goods carried or to be carried are affected in some manner, the section can have no application.
Before NEWMAN, PROST, and O'MALLEY, Circuit Judges. White, Thompson Hine LLP, of Columbus, OH, argued for plaintiff-appellant.
With him on the brief for defendants-appellees Qualcomm, Inc., et al was Tillman J.
Any claim by the owner or consignee or assignee of any bill of lading of any goods carried into any port in India in any ship for damage done to the goods or any part thereof by the negligence or misconduct of, or for any breach of duty or breach of contract on the part of, the owner, master or crew of the ship, unless it is shown to the satisfaction of the court that at the time of the institution of the action any owner or part-owner of the ship is domiciled in India.
This section has been construed liberally by the Indian High Courts which have held that, in order to attract the jurisdiction, it is not necessary that the goods should be imported into India or that their carriage should be for delivery in India.
RL alleged that the Appellees each indirectly infringed United States Patent No. Following these factual allegations, RL asserts a series of “reasonable inferences,” which it alleges can be drawn from the facts pled. Though a claim of indirect infringement can only arise where there is direct infringement and the district court concluded that no adequate claim of direct infringement had been pled, the court alternatively addressed whether the amended complaints adequately pled indirect infringement. at 31 (“Assuming, however, that a more generous standard of indulging such ultimate inferences should be applied after Twombly/Igbal, the Court will review Defendants' challenges to R & L's [sic] indirect infringement claims .”). With respect to RL's contributory infringement allegations, the district court first noted that, to plead contributory infringement plausibly, RL must allege facts supporting the conclusion that the accused products are not staple articles of commerce suitable for substantial noninfringing uses.
The district court dismissed the amended complaints because it believed they failed to state a claim to relief that was plausible on its face as required by Bell Atlantic Corp. The amended complaints also contain allegations about Appellees' strategic partnerships with other companies, their advertising, and their involvement at trade shows. The district court concluded that, because the amended complaints explain that the accused products can be used to speed bill payment, track a truck's locations, or monitor truck conditions, RL failed to plausibly plead that the accused products were not capable of substantial noninfringing uses.
Restitution - Mistake - Mistake of Fact - Letters of credit - Forged document - Bank alleging payment made under mistake of fact - Presenter of documents innocent of fraud - Whether moneys bank can claim restitution of moneys paid Civil Procedure - Costs - Defendant not involved in transaction at all, but having to defend action - Whether costs to be awarded on indemnity basis Banking - Letters of Credit - Documents with defects - Whether presenter of documents presenting them with knowledge of defects Banking - Letters of Credit - Forged health certificate - Whether documents can be rejected if known at time of presentment to be forged : The plaintiffs herein (`MP Bank`) are a bank incorporated in the Netherlands. The first defendants are a trading company in Singapore.