Latin American Shipping Co., Inc. v. Pan American Trading Corp.

• Decision Date: 10 October 1978
• Docket Number: No. 78-21,78-21
• Citation: 363 So.2d 578
• Parties: LATIN AMERICAN SHIPPING CO., INC., Appellant, v. PAN AMERICAN TRADING CORP., Appellee.
• Court: Florida District Court of Appeals

Page 578

363 So.2d 578

LATIN AMERICAN SHIPPING CO., INC., Appellant, v. PAN AMERICAN TRADING CORP., Appellee.

No. 78-21.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Oct. 10, 1978.

Rehearing Denied Nov. 17, 1978.

Richard F. Ralph, Miami, for appellant.

Quinton, Leib & Lummus and James D. Adams, Miami, for appellee.

Before HENDRY and KEHOE, JJ., and CHARLES CARROLL (Ret.), Associate Judge.

KEHOE, Judge.

Appellant, defendant below, brings this appeal from a final judgment dated September 28, 1977, entered by the trial court in favor of appellee, plaintiff below. We reverse.

The relevant facts in this matter may be summarized as follows: Appellee had a contract to sell 56 tons of steel reinforcing rods to Diez & Diez (Purchaser) located in Panama. The purchaser opened a letter of credit as security for the purchase price through the Southeast First National Bank of Miami (Bank). The letter of credit had as part of its terms that the goods were to be shipped to Panama City, Panama, via Cristobal and that the ocean bill of lading have an "on board" notation. Originally, appellee intended to ship the goods through the Port of Miami and to use the services of appellant, a Miami freight forwarder. Thereafter, appellee decided to ship the goods out of the Port of Baltimore, Maryland. When appellant was advised of this change, it advised appellee that it could not handle the shipment out of Baltimore and that it would be necessary for a freight forwarder located in New York to handle the shipment with the carrier, Prudential Grace Lines, Inc., whose main offices were in New York. Appellee authorized appellant to do whatever needed to be done in this regard. After this authorization, appellant contacted Gaynar Shipping Corp., a freight forwarder located in New York. Appellee and Gaynar had a correspondent relationship with each referring shipping matters to the other. Also, Gaynar had previously handled shipments of appellee. Appellant forwarded the purchase order, invoices, letter of credit, etc., which it had received from appellee to Gaynar. Gaynar booked space for the shipment with Prudential, prepared the bill of lading, and processed the shipment. Gaynar and Prudential had their offices in the same building in New York City and transacted business together on a regular basis. After Gaynar prepared the bill of lading, Gaynar sent it to Prudential for execution and issuance. Prior to issuing the bills of lading, Prudential changed the port of discharge from Cristobal to Balboa. Further, a notation of "on board" was never made. Subsequently, when Gaynar forwarded the documents back to Miami for presentment to the Bank, the documents were not in order because of the change in place of destination and the failure to include an "on board" notation. Due to these discrepancies, both the advising bank in Miami and the issuing bank in Panama refused to honor the letter of credit. Also, the purchaser in Panama refused to waive the discrepancies. The goods left Baltimore and arrived in Balboa following the presentment of the documents to the Miami bank. Appellee advised Prudential that the goods had not been delivered as booked and in accordance with the bill of lading as prepared by Gaynar pursuant to the booking. Appellee then demanded payment from Prudential while, in effect, abandoning the goods to it. Apparently, appellee never contacted the purchaser or made any effort to enforce the purchase contract. Appellee did make...