Answer following questions from the mini case attach

1. Why did the court not permit Banque de depots to seize the cargo Bozel shipped?

2. What are the policy reasons for not allowing a creditor, such as Banque do Depots, to seize cargo that is being shipped to a buyer under a bill of landing?

3. What are the expectations of a good faith purchaser of a bill of landing?

Banque de Depots v. Ferroligas 569 So. 2d 40 (1990) Court of Appeals of Louisiana BACKGROUND AND FACTS possession, (Louisiana law) permits the (carrier) to surrender the goods to the duly negotiated holder. The Banque de Depots, a Swiss bank, brought an action against Bozel, a Brazilian exporter, seeking a money judgment because Bozel had allegedly misapplied the law protects that holder from acquiring goods that are subject to a seizure. Any other conclusion would lead to the absurd result of requiring the holder, prior to his purchase of the bill of lading, to check every jurisdiction through which the goods passed to determine if it has been seized by judicial process. This would defeat the purpose of our commercial laws. The record is clear that on May 14, 1990, the date of the seizure, the negotiable bills of lading were outstanding. They were not in the hands of the carrier and their negotiation had not been enjoined. As discussed, the validity of the attachment must be determined as of the date it was issued. The Bank bank's funds. The bank obtained an order seizing 1,300 metric tons of calcium silicon located in a Louisiana port. The calcium silicon was shipped under ocean bills of lading by Bozel from Rio de Janeiro to New Orleans for transit to three purchasers, none of whom were domiciled in Louisiana. The documents were still in the hands of the collecting banks and had not yet been negotiated to the buyers. Bozel asked the court to free the goods because he was not the owner of the bills of lading. cannot cure this defect by seeking to impound the bills of lading after it obtained the seizure. To hold otherwise would create an impossible contradiction in our commercial laws since the "seized" goods would still be subject to the legal effects of the unimpaired "due negotiation" of the corresponding bills of lading. The legal "capture" of the bills of lading is a prerequisite to the seizure of the goods. LOBRANO, JUDGE Bozel asserts that . title to the cargo follows the bills of lading, and once those were transferred to the collect- ing banks, they (Bozel] were no longer the owner of the r oft cargo. The Bank asserts that .. only bills of lading which are "duly negotiated" transfer ownership of goods . They contend that the bills of lading may have been We order that the writ of attachment be dissolved.