Lite-On Peripherals, Inc. v. Burlington Aire Express, Inc.

Good Law
2001 Daily Journal DAR 7087·255 F.3d 1189·2001 WL 766360·2001 A.M.C. 2113·2001 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 5792
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitJuly 10, 2001No. 99-57003California2,719 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Trott, J.

In this case we must decide whether a consignor of goods named in a bill of lading has standing to sue the carrier for misdelivery of goods and breach of contract where there is evidence that the consignee, and not the consignor, entered into the shipment contract with the carrier. We answer this question affirmatively, and hold that, in this situation, the consignor of goods was a party to the contract evidenced by the bill of lading with full rights to enforce it. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s decision granting summary judgment in favor of the plaintiff.

FACTS

The parties in this case are Lite-On Peripherals, Inc. (“Lite-On”) and Burlington Air Express, Inc. (“Burlington”). Lite-On sued Burlington for breach of contract and misdelivery of goods, alleging that Burlington had violated the terms of its own bill of lading by failing to obtain an endorsed copy of the bill before delivering goods to the buyer, Reveal Computer Products (“Reveal”). Because Reveal turned out to be insolvent, Burlington’s failure to obtain a copy of the bill resulted in a loss of over $100,000 to Lite-On.

Lite-On’s involvement with this case stems from its relationship with the Silitek…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.