Wimble, Sons and Co Ltd v Rosenberg and Sons
Rule established
The seller's duty to give the buyer notice enabling him to insure goods sent by a route involving sea transit is purposive. Where the buyer already possesses the information necessary to effect insurance, the absence of a formal notice does not put the goods at the seller's risk.
Facts
- The sellers agreed to sell bags of rice to the buyers on free on board terms for shipment from a European port to a port abroad.
- The buyers nominated the destination and the goods were shipped accordingly.
- The sellers did not send a separate notice specifically framed to enable the buyers to insure the goods for the sea voyage.
- The buyers nevertheless had information as to the goods, the quantity, and the shipment.
- The vessel was lost at sea and the goods perished.
- The buyers refused to pay, contending that for want of notice the goods had remained at the sellers' risk during the sea transit.
Issue
- Whether the sellers were in breach of the duty to give the buyer notice enabling him to insure goods sent by sea, where the buyer already had sufficient information to effect insurance himself.
Held
- The buyers were liable for the price and bore the loss. The members of the court differed on whether the statutory notice provision applied at all to a free on board contract, but the majority held that, on these facts, the buyers had all the information reasonably necessary to insure. There was accordingly no breach of the duty, and the goods were at the buyers' risk when they were lost.
Ratio Decidendi
The provision exists to prevent the buyer being fixed with a risk he had no practical means of covering. It is a rule of substance rather than of form. Where the buyer knows the goods, the quantity and the shipment, he is in a position to take out a policy, and the seller's failure to send a document labelled as notice causes him no prejudice. The mischief the section addresses simply does not arise.
How to use it in an exam
- Direct authority on S.39(3) of the Sale of Goods Act 1930: where goods are sent by a route involving sea transit in circumstances in which it is usual to insure, the seller must give notice enabling the buyer to insure, or the goods are at the seller's risk during that transit.
- Structure an answer in two stages. First ask whether the seller gave notice. If not, ask whether the buyer nevertheless had the information required to insure. Only if the answer to both is no does the risk revert to the seller.
- Read with the general risk rule in S.26, that risk prima facie follows property, and with S.39(1) and S.39(2) on delivery to a carrier and the duty to contract reasonably with the carrier.
- Note the point of division in the case, namely whether the provision applies to free on board contracts at all. Mention it to show awareness, then apply the majority's practical test.
- In a problem where the buyer was never even told of the shipment, the exception cannot help the seller, because the buyer could not have insured.
Source
Source: [1913] 3 KB 743 (CA); leading authority on the purposive reading of the duty to give notice enabling insurance; citation and bench checked against Indian Kanoon and reported sources, audit of 12 August 2026
This is an educational summary, not the judgment itself. Cite the reported version in professional or academic work.