Samenvatting
Summary Carriage of Goods
Master programme Commercial and Company Law and International Trade Law. Course: Carriage of Goods. Complete summary, all literature, all case law, all seminars, all lectures etc.
[Meer zien]Voorbeeld 4 van de 50 pagina's
Voorbeeld 4 van de 50 pagina's
In winkelwagengesponsord bericht van onze partner
Gekoppeld boek
Titel boek:
Auteur(s):
- Uitgave:
- ISBN:
- Druk:
1 beoordeling
Door: poojanetherlands • 5 jaar geleden
Voorbeeld van de inhoud
CARRIAGE OF GOODSTable of Contents
LECTURE 1: INTRODUCTION..................................................................................................................... 3
READING MATERIALS: SMEELE, LEGAL CONCEPTUALISATIONS OF THE FREIGHT FORWARDER ........................3
CASE LAW: THE MUNCASTER CASTLE............................................................................................................... 3
CASE LAW: COGGS V. BERNARD FACTS............................................................................................................. 3
CASE LAW: VAN LOO V. WOUTERS IN JULY 1983, WOUTERS AND REMOVAL FIRM VAN LOO CONCLUDE A
CONTRACT FOR THE REMOVAL OF WOUTER’S HOUSEHOLD EFFECTS FROM SPAIN TO WEESP (THE
NETHERLANDS), WHERE THE GOODS ARE TO BE STORED UNTIL WOUTER’S NEW HOUSE IS COMPLETED IN
OCTOBER 1983. AFTER COLLECTION OF THE GOODS ON 3 AUGUST 1983, VAN LOO STORES THE GOODS AT
A TERMINAL IN ALTEA (SPAIN) AWAITING CARRIAGE TO WEESP. DUE TO A FIRE AT THAT TERMINAL LATE
SEPTEMBER, THE GOODS ARE LOST. WOUTERS BRINGS A CLAIM FOR COMPEN- SATION AGAINST VAN LOO,
WHO INVOKES THE STATUTORY ONE YEAR TIME BAR FOR CLAIMS UNDER A CONTRACT OF CARRIAGE.
CONTRACTS OF DEPOSIT ARE NOT SUBJECT TO THIS SHORT TIME BAR............................................................4
LECTURE 1...................................................................................................................................................... 4
LECTURE 2: UNIMODAL CONVENTIONS.............................................................................................. 12
CASE LAW: VELDHUIZEN V. BEURSKENS (2015).......................................................................................... 12
CASE LAW: SCHENKER V. TRANSFENNICA....................................................................................................... 13
CASE LAW: THE FAVORIET............................................................................................................................. 14
LECTURE 3: LIABILITY.............................................................................................................................. 22
READING MATERIAL: CHAPTER 5, SPANJAART............................................................................................... 22
CASE LAW: MAXINE FOOTWEAR [1959] A.C. 589...................................................................................... 25
CASE LAW: THE CANADIAN HIGHLANDER [1929] A.C. 223....................................................................... 26
CASE LAW: THE QUO VADIS I (ENGLISH TRANSLATION).............................................................................. 26
CASE LAW: THE QUO VADIS II (ENGLISH TRANSLATION)............................................................................ 27
CASE LAW: VAN DER GRAAF V. PHILIP MORRIS (ENGLISH TRANSLATION)..................................................28
CASE LAW: VAN DER GRAAF V. AIG (ENGLISH TRANSLATION).................................................................... 28
CASE LAW: OEGEMA V. AMEV (ENGLISH TRANSLATION).............................................................................. 28
LECTURE 4: MULTIMODAL TRANSPORT ............................................................................................ 28
READING MATERIAL: SPANJAART, CHAPTERS 6 AND 8.................................................................................. 30
CASE LAW: HR 1 JUNE 2012, NJ 2012, 516, S&S 2012/95 (GODAFOSS).............................................32
CASE LAW: QUANTUM CORP. V. PLANE TRUCKING [2002] 2 LLOYD’S REP. 24.........................................32
CASE LAW: KKK V. REGAL-BELOIT (2010) AMC 1521............................................................................ 32
CASE LAW: HR 29 JUNE 1990, NJ 1992, 106, S&S 1990/110 (GABRIËLA WEHR).............................32
CASE LAW: SIEMENS V. SCHENKER [2004] HCA 11.................................................................................... 33
CASE LAW: THERMO V. FERRYMASTERS [1981] 1 LLOYD’S REP. 200.......................................................33
LECTURE 5: TRANSPORT DOCUMENTS & BILLS OF LADING......................................................... 33
READING MATERIAL: SPANJAART, CHAPTER 3............................................................................................... 36
CASE LAW: THE RAFAELA S............................................................................................................................ 38
CASE LAW: THE HELIOPOLIS STAR................................................................................................................ 38
CASE LAW: THE EENDRACHT.......................................................................................................................... 39
CASE LAW: THE LADOGA 15.......................................................................................................................... 40
,CASE LAW: BOSMAN V CONDORCAMP............................................................................................................ 41
LECTURE 6: CHARTERPARTIES ............................................................................................................. 42
CASE LAW: RODOCANACHI V. MILBURN BROTHERS (1886) 17 Q.B.D. 316.............................................44
CASE LAW: LEDUC V. WARD (1888) 20 Q.B.D. 475.................................................................................. 45
CASE LAW: PRESIDENT OF INDIA V. METCALFE SHIPPING (1969) 2 LLOYD’S REP. 476 (DUNELMIA).....45
CASE LAW: HR 16 JANUARY 1998, NJ 1999, 284 (ANN. M.H. CLARINGBOULD), S&S 1998/53
(ENARXIS)....................................................................................................................................................... 45
SEMINAR 1................................................................................................................................................... 46
SEMINAR 4................................................................................................................................................... 47
CHAPTER 3 AND 4 OF CARRIAGE OF GOODS BY SEA....................................................................................... 47
ACTIS CO. LTD. V SANKO STEAMSHIP CO. LTD. [1982] 1 W.L.R. 119......................................................50
,Lecture 1: Introduction
This first lecture represents a general introduction to the topic of carriage of goods, covering the
definition of the contract of carriage, as well as related contracts such as storage contracts, freight
forwarding contracts and contracts of affreightment and the concept of bailment. It also touches upon
the relation between the relation between the contract of carriage and the contract of sale, and
provides an overview of the main unimodal transport law conventions.
Reading materials: Smeele, Legal conceptualisations of the freight forwarder
The commissionaire is in essence a freight forwarder who acts in his own name, or under a company
name, for the account of a principal.
Unlike a normal freight forwarder, the commissionaire de transport takes an obliga on of result upon
himself instead of promising to ‘arrange’ the transport and thus promising to do no more than an e
ort.
The commissionaire is seen interna onally as a contractual carrier and thus – possibly – is subject to
the interna onal transport conven ons.
N.B. Under French law the commissionaire is not seen as a carrier and therefore the interna onal
carriage conven ons do not apply according to French courts.
Case Law: The Muncaster Castle
Carriage by sea of 150 cases of ox tongues from Australia to London. Seawater enters No. 5 lower
hold (38 cm high) and causes cargo damage. Claimants argue that vessel was unseaworthy in that
inspection covers over storm valves were defective due to faulty hardening up of nuts on inspection
covers. Carrier acknowledges unseaworthiness ship, but argues that this was due to negligence of a
fitter employed by competent ship-repairers engaged by him and was not discoverable by surveyors
from classification society Lloyd’s Register or by the marine superintendent of the ship.
Case Law: Coggs v. Bernard
Facts
William Bernard[1] undertook to carry several barrels of brandy belonging to John Coggs[2] from
Brooks Market, Holborn to Water Street, just south of the Strand (about half a mile). Bernard's
undertaking was gratuitous; he was not offered compensation for his work. As the brandy was being
unloaded at the Water Street cellar, a barrel was staved and 150 gallons were lost.
Coggs brought an action on the case against Bernard, alleging he had undertaken to carry the barrels
but had spilled them through his negligence.
Synopsis of Rule of Law. Any man who undertakes to do an act is liable to an action if because of his
neglect, damage occurs.
, Case Law: Van Loo v. Wouters
In July 1983, Wouters and removal firm Van Loo conclude a contract for the removal of Wouter’s
household effects from Spain to Weesp (the Netherlands), where the goods are to be stored until
Wouter’s new house is completed in October 1983. After collection of the goods on 3 August 1983,
Van Loo stores the goods at a terminal in Altea (Spain) awaiting carriage to Weesp. Due to a fire at
that terminal late September, the goods are lost. Wouters brings a claim for compen- sation against van
Loo, who invokes the statutory one year time bar for claims under a contract of carriage. Contracts of
deposit are not subject to this short time bar.
The first instance Court agrees with Van Loo and explains that the contract consists of two stages.
Furniture removal from Spain to the Netherlands (carriage) and temporary storage at Weesp (NL)
(deposit). No separate contract is concluded for the storage in Altea (Spain). As the damage occurred
during temporary storage after performance of the removal had started and before it had ended Van
Loo is liable as carrier. As a result the claim is subject to the one year time bar.
The Court of Appeal takes a different view. The contract aims at carriage and storage of the house-
hold effects in the sense that there are separate agreements for carriage and storage. This follows from
the circumstance that during the storage period at Altea (instead of Weesp) the element of storage is
dominant. As a result, the claim for compensation of losses that occurred during the storage stage is
not subject to the short one year time bar that applies under transport law.
Van Loo disagrees with this view and argues that the element of carriage is the characteristic and
dominant obligation under the contract. The fact that storage took place in Spain does not alter this.
After all, Van Loo was only charged for transport costs and not for storage costs.
However, the Supreme Court accords with the Court of Appeal’s explanation and clarifies that the
Court of Appeal did not fail to appreciate the rule that when a contract meets the requirements of more
than one nominate contract, in principle, the provisions of each nominate contract apply to the contract
accumulatively.
However, the contract between Van Loo and Wouters does not in its entirety meet the requirements of
both the nominate contract of carriage and the contract of deposit. According to the Supreme Court the
Court of Appeal rightly does not apply the short time for suit to the claim for the compensation of
losses that occurred at the time that Van Loo acted in its capacity as a depositary and not as a carrier.
This is also consistent with the scope of application of the article on the short time bar which does not
apply to contract of deposit and which by its nature does not require a broad interpretation.
Lecture 1
Contractual relations
Contract of carriage
Comparison with storage and bailment
Forwarding contract
Contract of affreightment
Contract of carriage: Modern definition: under contract of carriage the carrier is obliged, against
payment of agreed remuneration (freight), to carry goods under his own responsibility.
Consignor (shipper) (A) ------------------ Carrier (B)
It is crucial that carrier binds himself contractually to the transport of goods.
Consensual rather than a factual criterion.
Not required that carrier performs transport himself.
Voordelen van het kopen van samenvattingen bij Stuvia op een rij:
Verzekerd van kwaliteit door reviews
Stuvia-klanten hebben meer dan 700.000 samenvattingen beoordeeld. Zo weet je zeker dat je de beste documenten koopt!
Snel en makkelijk kopen
Je betaalt supersnel en eenmalig met iDeal, creditcard of Stuvia-tegoed voor de samenvatting. Zonder lidmaatschap.
Focus op de essentie
Samenvattingen worden geschreven voor en door anderen. Daarom zijn de samenvattingen altijd betrouwbaar en actueel. Zo kom je snel tot de kern!
Veelgestelde vragen
Wat krijg ik als ik dit document koop?
Je krijgt een PDF, die direct beschikbaar is na je aankoop. Het gekochte document is altijd, overal en oneindig toegankelijk via je profiel.
Tevredenheidsgarantie: hoe werkt dat?
Onze tevredenheidsgarantie zorgt ervoor dat je altijd een studiedocument vindt dat goed bij je past. Je vult een formulier in en onze klantenservice regelt de rest.
Van wie koop ik deze samenvatting?
Stuvia is een marktplaats, je koop dit document dus niet van ons, maar van verkoper jos1673. Stuvia faciliteert de betaling aan de verkoper.
Zit ik meteen vast aan een abonnement?
Nee, je koopt alleen deze samenvatting voor €6,49. Je zit daarna nergens aan vast.
Is Stuvia te vertrouwen?
4,6 sterren op Google & Trustpilot (+1000 reviews)
Afgelopen 30 dagen zijn er 53340 samenvattingen verkocht
Opgericht in 2010, al 14 jaar dé plek om samenvattingen te kopen