Banque de Depots, a Swiss bank, brought an action against Bozel, a Brazilian exporter, seeking a money judgment because Bozel had allegedly misapplied the 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.
1. Why did the court not permit Comis to diverge from the terms of the bill of lading?
2. What are the policy reasons for not allowing a carrier, such as Comis, to disregard the terms of the bill of lading?
3. When combined with the opinion in Banque de Depots v. Ferroligas, what does this case tell you about the legal nature and effect of a bill of lading?