Try asking the following...
Try asking the following...
June 12, 1991
HIGH COURT
GHANA
CORAM
JUDGMENT OF PIESARE AG. J.
The claim against the defendants was for:
"(1) The refund of the sum of US$4,111 being the balance of the value of American Express traveller's cheques which the defendants received as carriers from Accra to London and there, to deliver to the plaintiff's bankers, and which the defendants failed to deliver to the plaintiff 's bankers.
(2) Damages for non-delivery of the traveller's cheques to the plaintiff 's bankers, for breach of contract and for failure to deliver.
(3) Interest on the said amount at the current bank rate or at 30 per cent from 27 September 1985 to the date of judgment."
On 24 May 1991 the court entered judgment for the plaintiff against the defendants as follows:
(1) That the plaintiff was not entitled to a refund of US$4,111 and damages for non-delivery, but to US$ 100 with interest at the current bank rate from the date of the writ, i.e. 23 January 1988 to the date of judgment, i.e. 24 May 1991.
(2) Costs of ¢50,000 against the defendants in favour of the plaintiff.
The plaintiffs case was simple. He wanted to send some traveller's cheques to his bankers, i.e. the Westminster Bank, London. On 28 September 1985 the plaintiff said he called at the business place of the defendant-company, which is a limited liability company doing business as carriers. He wanted to send a parcel containing 22 American Express traveller's cheques valued $6,000; that he handed it to an official of the defendants to be delivered to the plaintiff’s bankers, i.e. the National Westminster Bank, London.
The plaintiff said, the said official of the defendant-company opened the parcel and satisfied himself that the parcel contained the said traveller's cheques, and then charged the plaintiff a fee of ¢10,000; this [p.269] amount was paid by the plaintiff, and an airbill No. 282649 (exhibit D) was issued to the plaintiff by the said official of the defendant-company. On the face of the airbill (exhibit D) the following disclaimer clause appears:
"This is a non-negotiable airbill subject to the terms and conditions set forth on the reverse of the shipper's copy. In tendering this shipment, the shipper agrees that D.H.L. shall not be liable for special incidental or consequential damages arising from the carriage hereof. D.H.L. disclaims all liabilities, express or implied, with respect to this shipment. The liability of D.H.L. for any loss or damage shall be limited to US$100. Insurance coverage is available upon shipper's req
AI Generated Summary
The plaintiff, a literate trained professional, used DHL in Accra to courier 22 American Express traveller’s cheques valued at US$6,000 to his account at National Westminster Bank, London. He paid 2, 10,000 and received airbill No. 282649 (exhibit D), which on its face disclaimed liability and limited DHL’s exposure to US$100; the reverse referenced for terms was blank. In August 1987, National Westminster Bank reported that only three cheques totaling US$1,150 were received per DHL bill No. 011375. Suing for a balance refund of US$4,111, damages, and interest, the plaintiff faced DHL’s defenses that a standard form (exhibit A) governed and its employee lacked authority. The court inferred acceptance from the parcel’s passage through DHL’s system, rejected the authority defense, held exhibit D was the binding contract, and applied LEstrange and Chitty to conclude the signed limitation clause controlled. Judgment was entered for US$100 with interest and costs.