The Nature of the Case, Case Study Example

The case detail and number is Springer versus Great Western Railways Company, 1919, S5. It concerns charges that relate to wrongful conversion of goods and a breach of contract. The case involved a situation where a plaintiff has accused the defendant of selling his tomatoes illegally without obtaining permission from him. The tomatoes were supposed to be delivered to the plaintiff by the defendants.  The tomatoes were to be delivered on board of Croham together with other cargo consisting of tomatoes being delivered to other consignees. There was a delay in the delivery of tomatoes to the plaintiff as a result of the bad weather and strike of railway workers. The delay caused the defendants to be anxious and decided to sell all the tomatoes in the consignments. According to the defendants, the tomatoes being perishable goods, were in bad condition and could not reach the final destination as a result of the delay caused by bad weather and strike of railways workers. Furthermore, the defendants were not aware when the strike of railway workers will end hence decided to sell the tomatoes as a precaution so as to avoid further damages.

The date for the court judgment was July 26, 1920. The legal issue involved for the case was whether it was legal for the defendant to sell tomatoes without communicating with the plaintiff.  The case uphold legal precedent in that there were other cases that were related to the case with regards to the decision of the defendants to sell the goods of the plaintiff without communicating with him. Judges also cited other cases handled previously and have similarities to the case in their judgment. For example, the law in Sims versus Midland Ry. Co. (1) which was mentioned by a judge who dismissed the appeal for the case. This illustrates that the case did not create legal precedent, but it uphold legal precedent

The Facts to the Case

There are various relevant facts that pertain to the case. The first fact was that the defendant who the company contracted to convey the tomatoes to the plaintiff sold the tomatoes. The main reason that occasioned the sale of tomatoes was due to the delay in delivery of tomatoes that caused damages to the tomatoes.  Another fact was that there was a delay in the delivery of the consignments as a result of two major issues that include strike of railways workers and bad weather. The defendant did also not communicate with the plaintiff prior to selling of the tomatoes. The goods that were being travelled were also perishable hence was to be delivered within the required time so as to avoid damages. There was also the fact that the tomatoes were damaged and were in bad condition, and this made the defendants sell them. Another significant fact was that the damage to the tomatoes was not caused by the carrier but through conditions that were beyond control of human beings.

The Decision

The main decision was that it was a criminal offense to sell the tomatoes that belonged to the defendants without consultation with the plaintiff. The judgment was that selling tomatoes by the defendants without contacting the consignee was a breach of contract to deliver the goods and wrongful conversion of the goods. The defendants acted against the law by selling the tomatoes belonging to the plaintiff without communicating with the consignees regarding the decision to sell the tomatoes.   The fact that the defendants sold the tomatoes of the consignees without consultation with the plaintiff was relevant and amounted to a breach of contract. The fact was, therefore, considered as relevant. Another relevant fact was that tomatoes are perishable goods and cannot be able to survive for long. The implication of this is that the delay in delivery of tomatoes caused damages to the tomatoes.

The case leveled several arguments in favor and against the decision. In support of the decision, the court argued that the contractor had not authority to sell the goods of the plaintiff without due permission from the plaintiff. The court also supported the case by indicating that there was nothing that hindered the contractor from communicating with the plaintiff regarding the intention to sell the tomatoes. The defendants were in a position to communicate with the consignees of the goods on the situation. Failure by the defendants to communicate with the plaintiff regarding the situation at the time was not justified, and this also contributed to a breach of contract.

Analysis of the Case

The court decision regarding the case was appropriate and consistent with the rule of the law. The act of the defendants to sell the goods was a clear violation of the rule of law. The contract between the defendants and the plaintiff was about transporting the goods and not selling the goods. The action of the defendants to sell the goods is a violation of the contract, and this contributes to a breach of contract between the carrier and the consignee.  The owner also wrongfully converted the goods that were supposed to be delivered to the defendants. The reason the defendant provided for selling the goods is also not appropriate. Under the instance that the goods might have been damaged or in bad condition, there were many other options that were available. For example, other options could have been disposing of the goods or getting instruction from the owner. By selling the goods, the carrier acted in his capacity that is not in accordance to the law since he was not the owner of the goods.

The defendants did also not provide sufficient evidence for selling the goods. Although the owner indicated that the goods were in bad condition and that it was practically impossible to transport them to the final destination by railways, his decision was not justified. It was still possible for the owner to collect the goods and transport them by a lorry. The defendants also did not make any attempt to communicate with owners despite the fact there was nothing that can practically prevent him from communicating with the owners.

The defendants also provide some evidence that were relevant and justified. The damages to the tomatoes were caused by events that were beyond the control of the owner. Bad weather and strike were anticipated, and the carrier is not liable to the damages caused as a result of the strike and bad weather. The defendant was, therefore, not liable to the charges of damages that are caused by the strike and bad weather. It was in accordance to the law for the carrier to take the necessary action so as to ensure that the goods reached final destination or to notify the consignees of the situation. The fact that the carrier did not make the necessary steps to ensure that the goods reached the final destination or that the consignees are not informed is a violation of the law and the offense.

Conclusion

The interpretation of the law was appropriate and justified. The court did not omit any issues or arguments in making the judgments. All the reasoning was consistent and logical throughout the court rulings, and this makes it to be an appropriate judgment. The decision of the court also upholds legal precedent. It upholds legal precedents since other judgments have been made that are similar to the decision that the court made for the case. The public and legal policy implication for the ruling is that it is not appropriate for an individual to breach a contract. There should be adequate justification and approval from all the parties involved in the contract agreement before breaching a contract.