HENRY JACOBSON, MAX JACOBSON AND IRVING JACOBSON, TRADING AND DOING BUSINESS AS STYLE-CRAFT BAG MANUFACTURERS, A PARTNERSHIP, APPELLANTS,
v.
NEUENSORGER KORBWAREN-INDUSTRIE FRIEDRICH KRETZ, K.-G., APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
Style-Craft Bag Manufacturers sued Neuensorger Korbwaren-Industrie for the price of 1,500 sea-grass baskets sold under an f.o.b. Hamburg contract. The trial court ruled for the seller, and the appellate court affirmed, holding that under f.o.b. terms, title and risk of loss passed to the buyer at the Hamburg shipment point, so the buyer bore the loss when goods were damaged in transit.
The court held that under the f.o.b. Hamburg contract term, title and risk of loss passed to the buyer at the Hamburg shipment point. The retention-of-title provision in the February invoice did not operate to continue the risk of loss in the seller, as such retention was for security purposes only and did not affect the transfer of beneficial interest and risk of loss to the buyer at the f.o.b. point.
“The provision of the contract for sale of the merchandise stating the price and providing "f. o. b. Hamburg oder Bremen" resulted in title to the goods passing to the purchaser at that point of shipment (Hamburg).”
Establishes that f.o.b. Hamburg terms transferred title to the buyer at the shipment point, which is the critical factor determining risk of loss.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceStyle-Craft Bag Manufacturers (seller) and Neuensorger Korbwaren-Industrie Friedrich Kretz (buyer) entered into a contract via correspondence in Decem…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Passage Of Title cases and more on FLexlaw
This is an appeal from a final judgment rendered in the civil court of record in Dade County. The action was brought for the price of certain merchandise sold by plaintiff to the defendants. The trial, which was without a jury, resulted in a judgment for plaintiff in the amount of $1,283.50, plus $90 costs.
The contract for the merchandise was made up of correspondence between the parties. Following certain earlier dealings, the defendants (purchasers hereinafter) wrote a letter on December 13, 1954, to the plaintiff (seller hereinafter) placing an order for 1,500 sea-grass baskets.1
On December 22, from Germany, the seller wrote a letter to the purchaser acknowledging the order, quoted a price, specified that the goods would be shipped “f. o. b. Hamburg or Bremen”, provided for payment to be made “net without deduction in immediate cash upon certificate of forwarding agent”, and stated that unless contrary instructions were received by January 5, 1955, delivery would be undertaken.2 By a reply dated December 30, *6141954, the purchaser acknowledged receipt of the seller’s letter of December 22 and approved the price quoted.3
In the December 30 letter, the purchaser announced insistence that the “merchandise be made in good order”, and indicated that the purchaser would be in a better position to judge the merchandise when certain earlier shipments which were in transit were received.
The seller duly delivered the goods from the place of manufacture in Germany to a carrier at Hamburg, and from there they were transported to Miami. Upon arrival it was found that they had become damaged beyond use, in the course of the journey from Hamburg.
The trial court was required to determine which of the parties had the risk of loss after the property left the f. o. b. shipment point of Hamburg, Germany, and the court properly concluded that the risk of loss was on the purchaser.
In addition to the letters forming the contract, the court had before it an invoice made and forwarded at the time of shipment in February 1955, which restated the contract provisions as to price and for delivery to be f. o. b. Hamburg or Bremen, and, in fine print at the bottom of the page, contained a statement in German which translated to English was that the “merchandise remains our property until fully paid.”
The provision of the contract for sale of the merchandise stating the price and providing “f. o. b. Hamburg oder Bremen” resulted in title to the goods passing to the purchaser at that point of shipment (Hamburg). See McNeill v. Jack, Fla.1955, 83 So.2d 704; Standard Casing Co. v. California Casing Co., 1922, 233 N.Y. 413, 135 N.E. 834; 2 Williston, Sales, § 280b (rev.ed.1948). From that point, and during the balance of the journey, the risk of loss was on the purchaser. Heinberg v. Cannon, 36 Fla. 601, 18 So. 714; Farris & Co. v. William Schluderberg, T. J. Kurdle Co., 142 Fla. 765, 196 So. 184; 2 Williston, Sales, id.
While it was not involved in the contract as made up by the correspondence between *615the parties, the provision in the invoice forwarded in February 1955, to the effect that title would remain in the seller until goods were paid for, did not operate to continue the risk of loss in the seller after shipment from Hamburg. This is so because the title thus retained by the seller was for security purposes only, and the beneficial interest in the property would be considered transferred to the purchaser at the f. o. b. shipment point, with the result that the risk of loss then would be on the purchaser. Phenix Ins. Co. v. Hilliard, 59 Fla. 590, 52 So. 799 ; 2 Williston, Sales, §§ 280b, 305 (rev.ed.1948).
Additional questions argued under the assignments of error have been considered on the record and found to be without merit.
Accordingly, the judgment appealed from should be, and hereby is affirmed.
Affirmed
HORTON and PEARSON, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Mazda Motor Corp. v. Triche (Fla. 3d DCA 2023)…dealer.” Triche presented no contrary evidence. Because the vehicle was shipped “f.o.b. Mexico,” title to the vehicle and risk of loss passed to Mazda North America in Mexico. See Jacobson v. Neuensorger Korbwaren–Indus. Friedrich Kretz., K.–G., 109 So. 2d 612, 614 (Fla. 3d DCA 1959) (“The provision of the contract for sale of the merchandise stating the price and providing ‘f.o.b. Hamburg order Bremen’ resulted in title to the goods passing to the purchaser at that point of shipment (Hamburg). . . . Fr…
-
Future Tech Int'l, Inc. v. Tae Il Media, Ltd., 944 F. Supp. 1538 (S.D. Fla. 1996)…g that “[s]hipment ‘FOB Florida’ simply means that title to the goods and the risk of their loss passed to Charia in Florida, and Charia bore the cost of shipping from Florida to Louisiana”); Jacobson v. Neuensorger Korbwaren-Indus. F.K, K-G., 109 So.2d 612, 614 (Fla. 3d Dist.Ct.App.1959) (stating that “[t]he provision of the contract for sale of the merchandise stating the price and providing ‘f.o.b. Hamburg order Bremen’ resulted in title to the goods passing to the purchaser at that point of shipmen…
-
Exhibition Display Serv. Co., Inc. v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., 378 F.2d 903 (5th Cir. 1967)…th parties concede that because the delivery terms of the contract were “f. 0. b. contractor’s plant” under Florida law title passed to NASA at the moment of shipment. Jacobson v. Neuensorger Korbwaren-Industrie Friedrich Kretz, K.-G., Fla.App.1959, 109 So. 2d 612. No question of coverage of loss or damage to property owned by Exhibition therefore is involved. However, if the risk of loss in transit was on Exhibition after the property left the contractor’s plant despite the passing of title to NASA, then da…
Authorities Cited
- Phenix Ins. Co. v. Hilliard, 59 Fla. 590 (Fla. 1910)
- McNEILL v. Jack, 83 So. 2d 704 (Fla. 1955)
- Farris & Co. v. The William Schludersberg, 142 Fla. 765 (Fla. 1940)
- Heinberg Bros. v. F. Cannon & Co., 36 Fla. 601 (Fla. 1895)