Jain Irrigation System, Ltd. v. Chemcolit, Inc.
United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas
2000 WL 1802069 (2000)
- Written by Tanya Munson, JD
Facts
Jain Irrigation System, Ltd. (Jain) (plaintiff) purchased 700 metric tons of resin from Chemcolit, Inc. (Chemcolit) (defendant). Chemcolit contracted with Ocean Knight Shipping, Inc. (Ocean Knight) (defendant) to transport the resin from Houston, Texas, to Mumbai, India. Chemcolit sealed and locked containers that were presumed to be filled with resin. Ocean Knight issued bills of lading to Chemcolit, which stated that the containers were “said to contain” descriptions of the goods provided by Chemcolit. The containers were subsequently loaded onto vessels and transported to India. When the sealed containers arrived in India, they were opened to reveal that they contained 700 tons of soil, lumps of chemicals, and other waste material instead of the resin Jain purchased or what was described on the bill of lading. Jain rejected the containers. Jain brought suit against Chemcolit and Ocean Knight and alleged that Ocean Knight was liable for its damages resulting from the misdescription of the goods on the bill of lading. Ocean Knight moved for summary judgment, arguing that it was not liable because the bills of lading used the phrase “said to contain” and as a common carrier, Ocean Knight was not liable for the misdescribed goods under federal law.
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.