EU ,NATO, UN

The post is concerned with the differences and similarities between “European union (EU)”and “United nation (UN)”, and “The North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO)”. My question is Why “European union (EU)” are more effective than the other International organization such as “united nations (UN)”, “The North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO)” etc. The answer is given below.

The United Nations (UN) is an international organization founded in 1945 after the Second World War by 51 countries committed to maintaining international peace and security, developing friendly relations among nation and promoting social progress, better living standard and human rights. The European Union (EU) is an economic and political union of 27 member states, located primarily in Europe. Committed to regional integration, the EU was established by the Treaty of Maastricht on 1 November 1993 upon the foundations of the European Communities, and they share an economic prosperity, currency and certain laws which are a prerequisite to admission into the European Union. The

 EU has developed a single market through a standardized system of laws which apply in all member states, ensuring the free movement of people, goods, services, and capital. It maintains common policies on trade, agriculture, fisheries and regional development. Sixteen member states have adopted a common currency, the euro, constituting the Eurozone. The EU has developed a limited role in foreign policy, having representation at the World Trade Organization, G8, G-20 major economies and at the UN. As an international organization, the EU operates through a hybrid system of supranationalism and intergovernmentalism. In certain areas, decisions are made through negotiation between member states, while in others; independent supranational institutions are responsible without a requirement for unanimity between member states. Important institutions of the EU include the European Commission, the Council of the European Union, the European Council, the Court of Justice of the European Union, and the European Central Bank. The European Parliament is elected every five years by member states’ citizens, to whom the citizenship of the European Union is guaranteed. The North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) is an intergovernmental military alliance based on the North Atlantic Treaty which was signed on 4 April 1949. The NATO headquarters are in Brussels, Belgium, and the organization constitutes a system of collective defense whereby its member states agree to mutual defense in response to an attack by any external party. For its first few years, NATO was not much more than a political association. While these three organizations of UN, EU and NATO have certain common elements, there are also many differences between them. Similarities between the UN and EU are that they are both IGOs .They are both organizations that are created by their members to serve overarching purposes in multiple issue areas. They attempt to create peace through stability and economic cooperation. They are both fundamentally bound to the idea of democracy, and they both represent the collective will of their members.

The differences are that the UN is an international organization while the EU is more of a supranational organization. Members of the UN tend disobey their orders all the time and there is hardly much of an international precedent to make things really stick. The EU can almost force its members to abide by particular laws and rules. The UN strives for equality and the fair treatment of every human being, while the EU strives for regional economic integration and a binding of the states.

The UN and the NATO are two different groups, but they affect the world in the same way. They both want to make a difference in today’s world, they strive for peace and prosperity, and they work hard to accomplish their goals. The UN and NATO are similar in the way they are organized. They are each structured into several groups. They both have councils, a Secretary General, and Secretariat. The UN is made up of six organs .They are the Council, Secretariat, and International Court of Justice. NATO is made up of the Defense Planning Committee, Nuclear Atlantic cooperation council. UN and NATO were both formed after major crises in the world. UN was being formed during and after WWII. In 1944 representatives of China, the UK, US and USSR met at Dumbarton Oaks in Washington, D.C. to plan the peacekeeping Organization. The forming of NATO began years after WWII. Many western leaders saw policies of USSR as threatening. The UN was established on October 24, 1945.The North Atlantic Treaty was signed on April 4, 1949 by 12 independent nations. UN has 188 member countries, while NATO has 19.The countries

 that belong to NATO are Belgium, Canada, Czech, Republic ,Denmark, France, Germany, Greece, Hungry, Iceland, Italy, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Spain , Turkey, United Kingdom, and the United States. Another similarity between UN and NATO is that all the members are sovereign states.

In closing note it can be said that although there are certain similarities between UN, EU and NATO, the dissimilarities are even greater.

For more information:

1. Craig ,Paul;de Burca , Grainne (2007) .EU law text, cases and Materials (4^th Ed) Oxford:

2. Dinan , Desmond (2004) . Europe Recast: A History of European

Union.Palgrave Macmillan

3. Yesilada , Birol A . And David M. Wood. The Emerging European Union (5th ed. 2009)

4. Steiner, J, and L. Woods Textbook on EC law. (Oxford:

Oxford University press, 2006) ninth edition.

5. Horspool , M and m Humphreys , European Union Law . (Oxford: Oxford University press, 2008) fifth edition.

6. Boulevard Leopol III – laan, B1110 BRUSSELS, which is in Haren part of the City of Brussels. “NATO homepage ‘. http://www.nato.int/ Retrieved 7 March 2006

7. F.A. B eer  .Integration and Disintegration in NATO : Processes of Alliance Cohesion and Prospect for Atlantic Community . (Columbus Ohio States University Press, 1969), 330pp.

8. http://eiop.or.at/erpa/

9. http:// www.jeanmonnetprogram.org/1.3

10. http:// www.nato.int/

child raises

Today post deal with an important issue and the issue is child raises. This is a complex issue and for that it is necessary to have strong evidence. Without evidence this complex issue are not able to taking into consideration. Evidence in proceedings relating to children raises complex issues. It is necessary to consider how the court is to be satisfied of the basis for making an order, the nature of evidence required by the courts, rules of evidence peculiar to children's proceedings, the sources of evidence, the way in which that evidence is obtained, in particular from experts, disclosure of information and documents for the purpose of proceedings, withholding of information or documents on the basis of confidentiality and privilege or self-incrimination. Evidential practice under the CHILD ACT 1989 can labour under the disadvantage of certain myths, for example that there are no rules of evidence in children proceedings. This myth encompasses the idea that, in contrast to proceedings in the criminal and commercial jurisdictions, anything is admissible at any point and in any format in children proceedings regardless of the quality, source or timing of the evidence it is sought to have admitted. The second popular fiction is that all proceedings relating to children are procedurally informal in nature. This myth propagates and perpetuates the notion that the court will permit almost any procedural or evidential irregularity within the context of proceedings concerning children, provided that the same is in the children's best interests. Whilst the court will, of course, not let procedure stand in the way of a child's welfare, this myth of informality can militate against the timely prosecution of cases and runs the risk of reducing the welfare test to an excuse for procedural sloth. These two myths, which are without foundation, tend to operate against the proper presentation of cases, and in particular the proper gathering and presentation of evidence to prove cases.

On the hand not only evidence it is necessary to have burden of proof and standard of proof.

The legal burden of establishing the existence of the threshold criteria rests on the applicant. The general principle is that he who asserts must prove. The applicant must establish the existence of the pre-conditions and the facts entitling him to the order he seeks[1]. The standard of proof thus remains the balance of probabilities, as distinct from the criminal standard of beyond reasonable doubt[2] . Indeed, it is entirely appropriate for a judge in family proceedings to arrive at a different conclusion from a jury in a criminal trial given the wider range of evidence upon which the family court is concerned in respect of the child[3].

So for the complex issue like child raises not evidence is sufficient, also the burden and standard of proof is necessary.

Link: Evidence of child raises http://www.lexisnexis.com/uk/legal/results/pubTreeViewDoc.do?nodeId=TAALAAB&pubTreeWidth=23%25

---

[1]     Re H (Minors) (Sexual Abuse: Standard of Proof) [1996] AC 563, [1996] 1 All ER 1, [1996] 1 FCR 509, HL.

[2] See Re U and Re B [2004] EWCA Civ 567, [2004] 2 FLR 263 and Re T (Abuse: Standard of Proof) [2004] EWCA Civ 558, [2004] 2 FLR 838. In Re ET (Serious Injuries: Standard of Proof) [2003] 2 FLR 1205n the Court of Appeal expressly rejected a statement by Bodey J that the difference between the civil standard of proof and the criminal standard of proof is 'largely illusory.'

[3] A Local Authority v S, W and T (by his Guardian) [2004] EWHC 1270 (Fam), [2004] 2 FLR 129.

Arbitation Act 2010

This post is concerned with the Arbitration Act 2010.  The post mainly discussed what Arbitration Act 2010 is and to what the Act concerned. On June 8, 2010, the Arbitration Act 2010 came into force, repealing in their entirety the Arbitration Acts of 1954, 1980 and 1998 (except for arbitrations that had already commenced before that date). A new and vastly different Arbitration Act is now in force in Ireland. The new statute applies to both domestic and international arbitration. Its purpose is to “further and better facilitate the resolution of disputes by arbitration. Probably the most significant change to arbitration law in Ireland is that the 2010 Act gives force of law to the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law (UNCITRAL) Model Law on International commercial Arbitration (the Model Law) in respect of both international arbitration and “other arbitration”, i.e. domestic arbitration. The Act comprises three Parts and six Schedules, one of which is the text of the Model Law as adopted by UNCITRAL on June 21, 1985, with amendments as adopted by that Commission on July 7, 2006. The three Parts are Pt 1, “Preliminary and General”; Pt 2, “Arbitration”; Pt 3, “Reference to Arbitration where proceedings pending before Court”. Whilst not intending to go through the Model Law article by article, I believe that there are a number of provisions which are of such importance that it is necessary to discuss them individually in order for the reader to fully comprehend the changes that the adoption of the Model Law into domestic arbitration law has brought about.

In the early part of 2007, professionals involved in arbitration in Ireland felt that a change in the domestic law of arbitration was necessary and that such a change should be implemented by June 2008 when the International Council for commercial Arbitration (ICCA) Conference was scheduled to take place in Dublin. A group prepared a draft Bill that was circulated between the interested professional institutions in Ireland. That draft was however badly prepared and a number of qualified arbitrators, supported by the construction institutions, objected to it.

In April 2007, at the suggestion of the then Attorney General of Ireland, Rory Brady, Engineers Ireland (the IEI) hosted a symposium to examine whether legislative change was needed. It had been hoped that, through discussion involving all interested bodies, a general consensus could be reached. The symposium was divided into two sessions, the first relating to arbitration and the second dealing with conciliation and mediation. All the speakers in the first session agreed that some change in the domestic law of arbitration was necessary. However, Dudley Solan, solicitor, was of the opinion that, whilst certain changes were needed, the extent of those changes should be limited so as to ensure that the High Court maintained a certain supervisory role over arbitrations in Ireland. Michael Collins SC pointed out that changes were certainly needed to the Arbitration Acts 1954 to 1998, since the Acts as they stood were in breach of Ireland's obligations under its membership of the European Union.

Link: Arbitration Act 2010: https://login.westlaw.co.uk/maf/wluk/app/document?&src=rl&srguid=ia744cc640000012c3849188bcf223e82&docguid=I3273BE40E01711DFAEBCDAC8C6BD0AE0&hitguid=I3273BE40E01711DFAEBCDAC8C6BD0AE0&spos=4&epos=4&td=4000&crumb-action=append&context=5

contract and agreement

The post is related with contract law and before study commercial law I think all of us should know about what is contract, the differences between contract and agreement and the legal obligation of formation of contract, also the liability of breach of contract.

First it necessary to know that the definition of contract and differences of contract and agreement. Contract is legally enforceable agreement which represent a vehicle for planned exchange. For the formation of contract there must be mutual obligation between the parties, some terms and standard condition, exchange of goods and the most important there must have a clear intention to create a legal relationship. Once a contract is made each party can enforce it. After making the contract if one party breach the contract another party can sue and claim damages. A contract actually concluded when there is a actual intention to create a legal relationship. In Smith v Hughes it was stated that a contract is formed if a reasonable man believes that there is a clear intention to create a legal relationship. This case originated an objective test.

On the other hand although all contracts are related with agreement but agreement is different thing. Generally agreement means consists of reciprocal promises. Agreement is one type of undertaking given by both party. Not all undertaking is completely voluntary in that the law imposes certain obligation on those who enter particular types of agreement. Thus the fact of entering the agreement may be voluntary. Actually agreement is formed by the meeting of mind the both parties. So that all contracts are agreement but all agreement is not contract.

For breach of contract on party can claim remedies. There are two kinds of remedies and they are recession or damages and another party bound to give remedies. The party is liable for breach of contract.

So at the end of the discussion it can be said that contract and the agreement is not the same thing.

For more information: 1.Jill Poole, Text book on contract Law, published by oxford university press: edn 9^th page no 1-5

2. Ewan Mckendrick, contract law: published by Palgrave Macmillan edn 7^th page no 21-23

marine insurance

As a student of international commercial law I have a great interest on the subject of marine insurance. This is subject which is also related with international commercial law and I think all should know about what marine insurance and the history of marine insurance. Marine insurance is underwritten in England by the London market, consisting of Lloyd’s and the London insurance company which offer marine policy and by mutual insurance associations.

Now the important matter related to marine insurance is the definition of marine insurance. According to s.1 of the Marine Insurance Act 1906 marine insurance is a contract where by the insurer undertakes to indemnify the assured in manner and to the extent agreed against marine losses that is to say the  losses incident to marine adventure. The fundamental nature of marine insurance is the modern law is its characteristics as a contract of    indemnity. Insurance is not permitted to function as pure financial speculation on he continued safety of the insured property. Marine insurance is concerned with mitigating the adverse consequences of accidents it is not a financial instrument the replacement of the defunct or obsolete plant and machinery nor it is an investment which can be cashed in by the assured at his discretion. Most forms of marine insurance contract provide cover against specified perils but even all risks cover requires the assured to prove a loss by a casually compatible with the nature of insurance. Also s.3 (2) of the Act there are three instances first a marine instance adventure exists where a any ship goods or other moveable are exposed to maritime perils. Such property is called insurable property. Secondly there is a marine adventure where the earning of any freight passage money, commission, profit or other benefit.

Thirdly any liability may incurred by the owner of insurable property by the reason of maritime perils.

At last it can be said that marine insurance means where insurer undertakes any losses. Also marine insurance is governed by Marine Insurance Act 1906.

Information: HOWARD BENNETT, THE LAW OF MARINE INSURANCE: OXFORD UNIVERSITY PRESS, PAGE NO 1-12

e commerce

I AM A STUDENT OF INTERNATIONAL COMMERCILA LAW AND RELATED TO MY SUBJECT I FOUND AN INTERESTING TOPIC. AND THE TOPIC IS ELECTRONIC CONSUMER CONTRACT. THIS TOPIC RELATED TO E COMMERCE. THE ENORMOUS SUCCESS OF E BAY, FACEBOOK, GOOGLE ILLUSTRATES HOW CONSUMER AND BUSSINESS ALIKE HAVE EMBRACED ELECTRONIC COMMERCE AND THE INTERNET N THE LAST DECADE. INDEED FOCUSING ON E BAY THERE ARE 86.9 MILLION ACTIVE USERS, 1 BILLION PAGE VIEWERS PER DAY. IN UK THE FIGURES OF ONLINE SHOPPING INCREASES DAY BY DAY. E COMMERCE WILL CONTINUE DEVELOP THE ECONOMY OF THE WORLD.

ELECTRONIC CONTRACTS HAVE RAPIDLY INVOLVED FROM CONTRACTS BETWEEN BUSINESS ON CLOSED PRIVATE NETWORKS, SUCH AS INTERNET BETWEEN BUSINESS AND CONSUMER (B2C) AND AMONGST CONSUMERS (C2C). PERHAPS AS A RESULT OF THIS RAPID EVOLUTION CONTRACT THE LEGAL REGIME APPLICABLE TO THEM IS ONE SINGLE INSTRUMENT BUT DEFINE ACROSS A VAST ARRAY OF DIRECTIVES AND NATIONAL LEGAL INSTRUMENT.THE MAIN TWO DIRECTIVES WHICH CAN BE IDENTIFIED AS A BACKBONE OF B2C CLECTRONIC CONTRACT REGULATION ARE THE DISTANCE SELLING DIRECTIVE (DSD).

CHANGES IN THE REGULATION OF CONSUMER E CONTRACTS ARE HOWEVER HORIZON. THE PROPOSAL ON CONSUMER RIGHTS (pDCR) PUBLISHED ON 8 OCTOBER 2008, SUGGESTS MAJOR ALTERATION. AT THE TIME OF WRITING THE PCDR IS ONLY THE FIRST STAGE OF THE LIGISTATIVE PROCESS AND WILL NOT DOUBT BE THE ODJECT OF FIERCE NEGOTIATIONS AMONGST THE MEMBER STATES IN THE MONTH TO COME. IT IS ALREADY CLEAR THAT BECAUSE OF ITS WIDE RANGING SCOPE, THE PCDR WILL HAVE AN IMPORTANT IMPACT ON ELECTRONIC CONSUMER CONTRACT. UNFORTUNATELYTHERE SEEMS LESS POLITICAL WILL FOR A REVISION OF THE ECD.INDEED RECENT DICUSSION   OF REFORM OF THE LAW IN FRANCE IMPLEMENTING THE ECD ON THE LIABILITY OF INTERMIDIATES WAS NOT WELL RECEIVE IN BRUSSELS, WITH THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION INDICATING THAT IT DID  NOT CONSIDER  IT NECESSARY TO REVISED THE ECD AT PRESENT.

BUT THE MOST IMPORTANT THINGS IS THE DEFINITION OF ELECTRONIC CONSUMER CONTRACT.

ANY CONTRACT CONCERNING THE GOODS OR SERVICES CONCLUDED BETWEEN A SUPPLIER AND A CONSUMER UNDER AN ORGANIZED DISTANCE SALES OR SERVICE PROVISION SCHEME RUN BY ASUPPLIER WHO FOR THE PURPOSE  OF THE CONTRACTS MAKES EXXCLUSIVE USE OF ONE OR MORE MEANS OF DISTANCE COMMUNICATION UP TO AND INCLUDING THE  MOMENT AT THE WHICH CONTRACT IS CONCLUDED.

AT LAST I THINK E COMMERCE MAKES THE LIFE SO EASY AND FOR THE ELECTRONIC CONSUMER CONTRACT, DISTANCE DOES NOT METTER. ONE CAN EASILY PURCHASE ANYTHING ANYTIME FORM ANYWHERE. IT IS ALSO NECESSARY TO REMEMBER THAT FOR E COMMERCE AND DISTANCE COMMUNICATION OR FOR CONSUMERCONTRACT THE DEVELOPMENT OF ECONOMY INCREASE DAY BY DAY. SUCH AS IN UK NATIONAL STATISTICS SHOWS IN NOVEMBER 2008 UK BUSINESS RAISED TO £163 MILLION IN 2007 AN INCREASE OF OVER 30 PERCENT ON THE PREVIOUS YEAR. THE FIGURES ALSO REVEALED THAT 70.3 PERCENT OF BUSINESS HAD A WEBSITE. SO IN CONCLUSION IT CAN BE SAID THAT E COMMERCE ARE BENEFITED TO US.

FOR MORE DETAILS: LILIAN EDWARDS AND CHARLOTTE WAELDE, LAW AND THE INTERNET, EDN 3^rd: PUBLISHED BY HART PUBLISHING, PAGE NO 89-93 

trust law

I found something on trust law. For creating a valid trust there are some requirement and condition. For creating a valid trust there must present three certainties, formalities and the trust must be constituted properly.

Three certainties mean certainties of intention, certainties of subject and certainties of object. The trust is not valid where three certainties are not present: knight v knight.  In this case it was stated that the trust is not valid until three certainties present.

There should be a clear intention to create a trust and there are not exist any precatory words such as may, desire, in default, hope, etc. In Paul v constant the trust are not valid for the precatory words. It is essential that the actions of the company/settler in its interactions with the counterparty evince an unequivocal intention to establish a trust. Equally important is the requirement that such intention has been followed up with substantive action. The courts are alert to ensure that substance prevails over form, though clearly the use of trust terminology is to be advised. Setting up and operating a separate bank account, into which trust moneys are paid and then held inviolate, is a simple way of satisfying the legal requirements here.

Also for create a valid trust the subject matter should be certain. Without that the trust would fail. For example in Re London wine the trust are not valid because the subject are not certain. The trust property may take any form. It may be cash or it may be an asset. That asset may be tangible or intangible.

Finally, it is necessary to establish certainty of objects. The beneficiaries must therefore be clearly identified. In the point of fixed trust there should be a complete list of beneficiaries and for discretionary trust the is or is not test would apply. For example in Re Baden No 2 the exits a question whether the blood relatives are all in the class of beneficiaries or not.  

So without proper formalities, three certainties the trust are not constituted. And if the trust failed it goes back to the settler. Another important thing if the trust is failed for lack of intention a valid gift can be taken place. So as I think a trust is only valid if it is comply with the above mention condition.

Link: https://login.westlaw.co.uk/maf/wluk/app/document?&src=rl&srguid=ia744cc630000012c23ab46852a986c9b&docguid=I575E7EA07DFE11DFAFDB9A0B56B51DBF&hitguid=I575E7EA07DFE11DFAFDB9A0B56B51DBF&spos=2&epos=2&td=182&crumb-action=append&context=11

power point slides link

the link is given below of my power point slides:

http://www.slideshare.net/mdmahbubhasan/power-point-slides-5685679

terms of carriage contract

As my previous post was concern about the carriers. Now I get something more interesting. Today’s my post is related with contractual terms of carriage of goods. Without such a valid contractual terms the contract for carriage of goods are not valid. The parties to a contract for the carriage of passengers or goods may, with certain exceptions, incorporate in it any terms and conditions upon which they may agree. The terms and conditions of any particular contract of carriage are to be ascertained by the application of the general law of contract. The great majority of those carrying on business as carriers profess to carry only in accordance with standard terms and conditions. Standard conditions of carriage may be incorporated either by express agreement, oral or written, in which case no problem arises, or by implication, which will usually arise either where the contract is made by the issue of a ticket or other contractual document or from a course of dealing between the parties. So for a valid contract of carriage of group the parties must agree with the certain terms and standard condition. Standard condition may be incorporated orally or by agreement or in writing. But there is point the passenger or the person must aware about the terms and condition of the contract. Whether the passenger had knowledge of the terms and conditions of the contract of carriage, and whether all reasonable steps were taken to give him notice, are questions of fact. With regard to the question whether reasonable steps were taken to give notice, the passenger is not entitled to rely on his illiteracy, for the carrier is entitled to assume that his passengers have possession of those faculties ordinarily held by human beings, and the passenger cannot contend that reasonable steps were not taken, because it would have taken him considerable time and trouble to ascertain precisely what the conditions were. But if, in the case of a special contract of carriage, the document containing the conditions is handed to the passenger at so short a time before the commencement of the journey that he has no time to examine it, there may be no communication of the conditions or no implication of their acceptance.

Where an oral contract has been concluded, further terms cannot be added by the later handing over of a receipt or other document containing them or a reference to them.

The display of a notice in the office where an oral contract is made stating that carriage is only undertaken upon certain terms may have the effect of incorporating these terms in the contract of carriage; but will do so only if the notice is effectively brought to the customer's attention.

Most carriage of goods by private carriers is undertaken pursuant to contract. A contract of carriage is generally negotiated between consignor and carrier but the identity of the parties to that contract will depend on the circumstances, most notably the terms of the contract of carriage and the terms of any contract between the consignor and consignee.

Where the consignor has the general property in the goods at the time of contracting and retains such property throughout the period of carriage he is normally the proper party to sue on the contract and in tort. This accords with the principle that the proper party to sue where goods are lost or damaged is the owner and that the party having property in the goods is prima facie the party with whom the contract of carriage is made.

However, the lack of property in a consignee need not be fatal to a contractual claim by him. Thus, where the Carriage of Goods by Sea Act 1992applies, the consignee acquires right of suit on becoming the lawful holder of a bill of lading irrespective of whether he has also acquired property in the goods.

So considering the point I want to say that for a valid carriage contract it necessary to have valid and standard terms and not only that also the standard terms must be communicated to the passenger and the person who carry the goods. It is also necessary to remember that whether the reasonable steps are taken to communicate the terms or not. At last if the contract is breach by any party the damage are available. One party can sue another party under tort where goods are lost or damaged is the owner and that the party having property in the goods is prima facie the party with whom the contract of carriage is made.

For more detail as I think the links are very useful and please visit if any one want to know.

http://www.lexisnexis.com/uk/legal/auth/checkbrowser.do?t=1288985327374&bhcp=1( for standard terms)

http://www.lexisnexis.com/uk/legal/auth/checkbrowser.do?t=1288985327374&bhcp=1 ( for the clause of reasonable notice)

http://www.lexisnexis.com/uk/legal/results/pubTreeViewDoc.do?nodeId=TAAUAAF&pubTreeWidth=23%25( for remedy)

carriage of goods

As a student of international commercial law I and many of my friends take a subject of carriage of goods. But I think we all should know the definition of carriers before dealing with carriage of goods.  . It is very important to know that about the classification of the carriers. Carriers are persons who, either gratuitously or for reward, carry passengers or goods otherwise than for the carriers' own purposes or for purposes connected with the carriers' own trade or business. They may be classified as: (1) common carriers; (2) private carriers; or (3) other classes of carrier with special rights and duties. So according to the definition carriers means any person who carry passengers goods gratuitously or for reward or for his own purpose or for the purpose of trade and business. To prove a person as a carrier the person must be fall within this definition. Any forwarding agents are persons who conduct the business of arranging the transport of goods for others. They are not ordinarily carriers and do not ordinarily undertake that goods will be carried. Their normal function is to act as agents in concluding contracts for the carriage or handling of customers' goods with carriers or other independent contractors. A person who ordinarily carry the goods they are normally agent.

In the point of common carriers the rights and liabilities of a common carrier are determined by the common law subject to qualification by statute or by any special contract (carriage Act 1830). Private carriers ordinarily transact on detailed standard terms and their rights and liabilities are often determined solely by contract. In every case, apart from any statutory exception, it is a question of fact whether or not a person is a common carrier. Since, however, virtually all modern carriage of goods is regulated by contract; carriers who operate purely as common carriers but fail to limit by special contract their common law liabilities are likely to be rare. Moreover, in the case of international carriage the status of a common carrier is something of an anachronism since much of modern English law relating to such carriage (whether by road, rail, sea or air) derives directly or indirectly from international conventions. These conventions form part of English law only so far as they are incorporated into it by domestic legislation.

As I think it is very important for all of us because at the time of the research about carriage of goods we should know what carriage of goods, who is the carriers, the classification of the carriers and related all thinks which are really helpful . So consider this point i want to say that it is necessary to know about the carriers.

And for detail discussion the link is very useful and which is given below:

http://www.lexisnexis.com/uk/legal/results/docview/docview.do?docLinkInd=true&risb=21_T10536340551&format=GNBFULL&sort=BOOLEAN&startDocNo=1&resultsUrlKey=29_T10536340554&cisb=22_T10536340553&treeMax=true&treeWidth=0&csi=274661&docNo=1

The link will help to know the detail information and statutes which are enough to have a knowledge about the carriers.  

Thank you

Md Mahbub Hasan

international trade law

this a journal related with international trade law.

Journal Article - Case Comment

Aircraft subsidies and WTO rules: the Airbus decision.

Brendan McGivern.

A. & S.L. 2010, 35(4/5), 305-315.

Publication Date: 2010

Abstract: Discusses the World trade Organisation (WTO) panel decision in Re European Communities and Certain Member States on whether support from the EU and four Member States to Airbus by way of launch aid, grants for infrastructure development, corporate restructurings, research and development funding and European Investment Bank loans breached the WTO Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures 1994 because they caused adverse effects and serious prejudice to international trade.

Legislation Cited: Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures 1994 (WTO) 

Cases cited: European Communities and Certain Member States

Companies referred to: Airbus

Link: https://login.westlaw.co.uk/maf/wluk/app/document?&src=rl&srguid=ia744d0640000012c1676d3ad6490a333&docguid=ID498C400E30411DF9A8EEFF860C32D7D&hitguid=ID498C400E30411DF9A8EEFF860C32D7D&spos=1&epos=1&td=4000&crumb-action=append&context=14

commercial contract

this journal may helpful for commercial contract.

Journal Article, The flexible route(COMMERCIAL CONTRACT), Stuart Whitmarsh.

Accountancy 2010, 146(1404), 43-44. Publication Date: 2010

Abstract: Considers how businesses are increasingly turning to vehicle rental companies to meet their transport needs, and notes the range of flexible short and long-term rental options that the industry is offering in response to this demand. Assesses the distinction between vehicle rental and vehicle leasing. Outlines the financial benefits of vehicle rental and contract hire arrangements.

Link: https://login.westlaw.co.uk/maf/wluk/app/document?&src=rl&srguid=ia744d05f0000012c167d625fb6ea8e3e&docguid=I71EAD331BA2711DF98B0B09B06EF1AB5&hitguid=I71EAD331BA2711DF98B0B09B06EF1AB5&spos=1&epos=1&td=4000&crumb-action=append&context=17

CIF contract

The CIF (cost insurance and freight contract) contract is related with the cost, insurance and freight.

Mainly the CIF contract is an exception of s .20(1) of sale of goods Act 1979. Generally if there is an express agreement that one party is to bear the risk even though he has no property, affect must given to the agreement, but in the absence of such an rule of law arising from the very nature of property[1].  In this situation there is nothing peculiar about separating the transfer of risks from the transfer of the property and this commonly happens where goods are shipped under a CIF contract.

There are some exceptional cases such as Sterns v Vickers [1923]1 KB 78  in that case there was no appropriation and court of appeal held that the risk had passed to the buyers and also the decision was approved by House of lords and so that there arise man and so that there arise man problem regarding passing of property which give a direction to a amendment of sale of goods Act 1995 [2]. Similar case is d’ Achat et de v Luis de ridder (The jullia) [1943] AC 293. 319 and  Inglis v Stock (1985) 10 App cas 263[3].

---

[1] See the case of Hansen v Craig (1985) 21 d 432, 438 per load president ingils, cited by load Normand in competitor d’ Achat et de v Luis de ridder (The jullia) [1943] AC 293. 319

[2] Atiyah, Adams, Hector Atiyah’s sale of Goods 12^th edn p 343 

[3] Atiyah, Adams, Hector Atiyah’s sale of Goods 12^th edn p 344