Differences between Henry Dean and Sons (Sydney) Limited v P O'Day Pty Ltd, and Gill & Duffus SA v Berger & Co Inc (Essay Sample)

Differences between Henry Dean and Sons (Sydney) Limited v P O'Day Pty Ltd, and Gill & Duffus SA v Berger & Co Inc
Henry Dean and Sons (Sydney) Limited v P O'Day Pty Ltd raises controversy regarding the buyer’s right to reject documents in a CIF contract. The Australian High Court held that a buyer may be permitted to reject conforming documents where the goods delivered/shipped by the seller fails to conform to the contract. The ruling violates the English law and Sales of Goods Act 1979. According to English Law, a CIF buyer enjoys two distinct rights in a sale of goods contract: the right to reject non-conforming goods upon their delivery where there is no slight breach and the right to reject non-conforming documents. These two rights are distinct and separate. A CIF buyer who has already received conforming documentation cannot decline to accept the property in the form of goods based on rumours or belief that goods shipped do not conform to the contract.
A different approach was utilized in Gill & Duffus SA v Berger & Co Inc the court held that the buyer unlawfully breached the contract by refusing to accept the tendered documents. The judge held that the buyer was entitled to accept conforming documentation even if the goods upon shipping and delivery do not conform to the contract. The ruling differs from Henry Dean and Sons (Sydney) Limited v P O'Day Pty Ltd which held that the buyer may reject conforming documentation on the grounds that shipped goods fail to conform to the contract.
Gill & Duffus SA v Berger & Co Inc approach is much better since it aligns with the English Law provision concerning international sale of goods on a CIF basis and maintains the separateness of buyer’s rights in such contracts. The buyer’s right to reject