(Dec. 30, 1963, 77 Stat. 730, Pub. L. 88-243, § 1 ; Apr. 27, 2013, D.C. Law 19-299, § 9, 60 DCR 2634 .)
Prior Codifications
1981 Ed., § 28:7-601.
1973 Ed., § 28:7-601.
Uniform Commercial Code Comment
Prior Uniform Statutory Provision: Section 14, Uniform Warehouse Receipts Act; Section 17, Uniform Bills of Lading Act.
Changes: General revision. Principal innovations include: affirmation of bailee’s privilege to deliver to claimant without resort to judicial proceedings if the bailee acts in good faith and is willing to take the full risk of loss in case the lost document turns up in the hands of an innocent purchaser; explicit authorization to the court to order bailee to issue a substitute document rather than make physical delivery of the goods; inclusion of “stolen” as well as lost documents; extension of section to non-negotiable documents.
Purposes of Changes: The purposes of the changes insofar as they are not self-evident are as follows:
1. As to bailee’s privilege to deliver without court order, doubt had arisen as to the propriety of such action under Section 54 of the Uniform Warehouse Receipts Act, which made it a crime to deliver goods covered by negotiable receipts without taking up the receipts “except in the cases provided for in Section 14” (the lost receipts section). This has been interpreted by one court as exempting from criminal liability only if the judicial procedure of Section 14 was followed. Dahl v. Winter-Truesdell-Diercks Co., 61 N.D. 84, 237 N.W. 202 (1931). Although the criminal provisions are not being re-enacted in this Act (and the Uniform Bills of Lading Act never did include such a criminal provision), it seems advisable to clarify the legality of the well established commercial practice of bailees to make delivery where they are satisfied that the claimant is the person entitled under a lost document. Since the bailee remains liable on the document in such cases, he will usually insist that the claimant provide an indemnity bond.
2. The old acts provide only for compulsory delivery of goods; this Section provides also for compulsory issuance of a substitute document. If continuance of the bailment is desirable there is no reason to require the goods to be withdrawn and redeposited in order to secure a negotiable document. The present acts would probably be so interpreted. Section 20 of the Federal Warehouse Act and some state laws expressly require issuance of a new receipt on proof of loss and posting of bond.
3. Claimants on non-negotiable instruments are permitted to avail themselves of this procedure because straight bills of lading sometimes contain provisions that the goods shall not be delivered except upon production of the bill. If the carrier should choose to insist upon production of the bill, the consignee should have some means of compelling delivery on satisfactory proof of entitlement.
Ordinarily no security would be necessary to indemnify a bailee in delivering to the person named in a non-negotiable document. But disputes as to negotiability may arise, in which case if there is a reasonable doubt on the point the bailee should be protected against the possibility that the missing document would, in the hands of an innocent purchaser for value, be held negotiable.
4. It seems unnecessary to state, as do the present acts, that the court shall act “on satisfactory proof of such loss or destruction.“ The right of action created by the section is conditioned on a document being lost, stolen or destroyed. Plaintiff must of course bring himself within the section. There is nothing in the language of the old acts to suggest that they intended to impose anything but the normal burden of proof on the plaintiff in such proceedings.
5. Subsection (2) makes it clear that after delivery without court order the bailee remains liable for actual damages. Liability for conversion is provided where the delivery is dishonest, but excluded where a filed classification or tariff is followed in good faith, or where the described bond is posted in good faith and no classification or tariff is filed. Liability for conversion in other cases is left to judicial decision.
Definitional Cross References: “Bailee”. Section 7-102.
“Bill of lading”. Section 1-201.
“Delivery”. Section 1-201.
“Document”. Section 7-102.
“Good faith”. Section 1-201.
“Goods”. Section 7-102.
“Person”. Section 1-201.
“Warehouse receipt”. Section 1-201.
“Warehouseman”. Section 7-102.
Prior Uniform Statutory Provision: Former Section 7-601.
Changes: To accommodate electronic documents; to provide flexibility to courts similar to the flexibility in Section 3-309; to update to the modern era of deregulation; and for style.
Purposes: 1. Subsection (a) authorizes courts to order compulsory delivery of the goods or compulsory issuance of a substitute document. Compare Section 7-402. Using language similar to that found in Section 3-309, courts are given discretion as to what is adequate protection when the lost, stolen or destroyed document was negotiable or whether security should be required when the lost, stolen or destroyed document was nonnegotiable. In determining whether a party is adequately protected against loss in the case of a negotiable document, the court should consider the likelihood that the party will suffer a loss. The court is also given discretion as to the bailee’s costs and attorney fees. The rights and obligations of a bailee under this section depend upon whether the document of title is lost, stolen or destroyed and is in addition to the ability of the bailee to bring an action for interpleader. See Section 7-603.
2. Courts have the authority under this section to order a substitute document for either tangible or electronic documents. If the substitute document will be in a different medium than the original document, the court should fashion its order in light of the requirements of Section 7-105.
3. Subsection (b) follows prior Section 7-601 in recognizing the legality of the well-established commercial practice of bailees making delivery in good faith when they are satisfied that the claimant is the person entitled under a missing (i.e. lost, stolen, or destroyed) negotiable document. Acting without a court order, the bailee remains liable on the original negotiable document and, to avoid conversion liability, the bailee may insist that the claimant provide an indemnity bond. Cf. Section 7-403.
4. Claimants on non-negotiable instruments are permitted to avail themselves of the subsection (a) procedure because straight (non-negotiable) bills of lading sometimes contain provisions that the goods shall not be delivered except upon production of the bill. If the carrier should choose to insist upon production of the bill, the consignee should have some means of compelling delivery on satisfactory proof of entitlement. Without a court order, a bailee may deliver, subject to Section 7-403, to a person claiming goods under a non-negotiable document that the same person claims is lost, stolen, or destroyed.
5. The bailee’s lien should be protected when a court orders delivery of the goods pursuant to this section.
Cross References: Point 1: Sections 3-309, 7-402 and 7-603.
Point 2: Section 7-105.
Point 3: Section 7-403.
Point 4: Section 7-403.
Point 5: Sections 7-209 and 7-307.
Definitional Cross References: “Bailee”. Section 7-102.
“Delivery”. Section 1-201.
“Document of title”. Section 1-201.
“Good faith”. Section 1-201 [7-102].
“Goods”. Section 7-102.
“Person”. Section 1-201.
