Haul AS v. Expert Concrete, Inc.
New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division
2001 WL 1598367 (2001)
- Written by Tanya Munson, JD
Facts
Jeill Enterprises, a Korean company, contracted to sell four pumps to Expert Concrete, Inc (Expert) (defendant). Expert paid for three pumps but could not arrange for financing of the fourth pump, Pump D705011. The pumps were to be transported from Korea to New Jersey by the carrier, Haul AS (plaintiff). At the time of shipping, Expert had not yet paid the balance due for Pump D705011. Haul AS issued a negotiable bill of lading for Pump D705011. Jeill retained possession of this separate order pending Expert’s full payment for Pump D705011. Haul AS transported the pumps to a terminal in New Jersey, where its local representative met with Expert. Expert presented to Haul AS documents not including the bill of lading for Pump D705011. Despite the lack of the bill of lading, Haul AS released all four pumps to Expert. Subsequently, Jeill obtained a judgment in Korea against Haul AS for its misdelivery of Pump D705011. Haul AS paid the judgment and obtained possession of the bill of lading from Jeill. Haul AS, as the holder of the bill of lading, was subrogated to the rights and stood in the shoes of Jeill. Haul AS was thus able to assert Jeill’s rights with respect to the misdelivery of Pump D705011. Haul AS brought an action against Expert for replevin of Pump D705011. Haul AS moved for summary judgment.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning ()
What to do next…
Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,500 briefs, keyed to 994 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.