0 valutazioniIl 0% ha trovato utile questo documento (0 voti)
109 visualizzazioni1 pagina
This document discusses a case regarding the delayed delivery of goods by Maersk Line. Some key points:
1. Maersk Line was hired to transport 600,000 empty gelatin capsules from Puerto Rico to the Philippines, with an estimated arrival date of April 3, 1977 noted on the bill of lading.
2. However, the goods were misshipped and did not arrive until June 10, 1977, over two months late.
3. The court found Maersk Line liable for the delay, as two months was beyond a reasonable delivery window, even though no specific delivery date was contracted. Maersk could not explain the lengthy delay.
This document discusses a case regarding the delayed delivery of goods by Maersk Line. Some key points:
1. Maersk Line was hired to transport 600,000 empty gelatin capsules from Puerto Rico to the Philippines, with an estimated arrival date of April 3, 1977 noted on the bill of lading.
2. However, the goods were misshipped and did not arrive until June 10, 1977, over two months late.
3. The court found Maersk Line liable for the delay, as two months was beyond a reasonable delivery window, even though no specific delivery date was contracted. Maersk could not explain the lengthy delay.
This document discusses a case regarding the delayed delivery of goods by Maersk Line. Some key points:
1. Maersk Line was hired to transport 600,000 empty gelatin capsules from Puerto Rico to the Philippines, with an estimated arrival date of April 3, 1977 noted on the bill of lading.
2. However, the goods were misshipped and did not arrive until June 10, 1977, over two months late.
3. The court found Maersk Line liable for the delay, as two months was beyond a reasonable delivery window, even though no specific delivery date was contracted. Maersk could not explain the lengthy delay.
CA Nonetheless, settled is the rule that bills of lading are
G.R. No. 94761, May 17, 1993 contracts not entirely prohibited. One who adheres to the contract is in reality free to reject it in its entirety; if he adheres, he gives his FACTS: Petitioner Maersk Line is engaged in the transportation of consent (Magellan Manufacturing Marketing Corporation v. Court of goods by sea, doing business in the Philippines through its general Appeals, et al., 201 SCRA 102 [1991]). agent, Compania de Tabacos de Filipinas, while private respondent Efren Castillo is the proprietor of Ethegal Laboratories, a firm In Magellan, (supra), we ruled: “It is a long standing engaged in the manufacture of pharmaceutical products. jurisprudential rule that a bill of lading operates both as a receipt and as contract to transport and deliver the same a therein stipulated. As a On Nov. 12, 1976, Castillo ordered from Eli Lilly, Inc. of contract, it names the parties, which includes the consignee, fixes the Puerto Rico 600,000 empty gelatin capsules for the manufacture of route, destination, and freight rates or charges, and stipulates the his pharmaceutical products. The capsules were placed in 6 drums of rights and obligations assumed by the parties. Being a contract, it is 100,000 capsules each valued at US$1,668.71. Shipper Eli Lilly,Inc. the law between the parties who are bound by its terms and advised Castillo through a Memorandum of Shipment that the conditions provided that these are not contrary to law, morals, good products were already shipped on board MV “Anders Maerskline” customs, public order and public policy. A bill of lading usually for shipment to the Philippines via Oakland, California. In said becomes effective upon its delivery to and acceptance by the shipper. Memorandum, shipper Eli Lilly, Inc. specified the date of arrival to It is presumed that the stipulations of the bill were, in the absence of be April 3, 1977. fraud, concealment or improper conduct, known to the shipper, and he is generally bound by his acceptance whether he reads the bill or However, for unknown reasons, said cargoes of capsules not. were mis-shipped and diverted to Richmond, Virginia, USA and then transported back to Oakland, California, USA and with the goods finally arriving in the Philippines on June 10, 1977 or after two (2) However, the aforequoted ruling applies only if such months from the date specified in the memorandum. Consignee contracts will not create an absurd situation as in the case at bar. The Castillo refused to take delivery of the goods on account of its failure questioned provision in the subject bill of lading has the effect of to arrive on time, and filed an action for rescission of contract with practically leaving the date of arrival of the subject shipment on the damages against Maersk Line and Eli Lilly alleging gross negligence sole determination and will of the carrier. and undue delay. Petitioner contends as well that it cannot be held liable Denying that it committed breach of contract, petitioner because there was no special contract under which the carrier alleged in its answer that the subject shipment was transported in undertook to deliver the shipment on or before a specific date and accordance with the provisions of the NCC covering bill of lading that the Bill of Lading provides that “The Carrier does not undertake and that its liability under the law on transportation of good attaches that the Goods shall arrive at port of discharge or the place of only in case of loss, destruction or deterioration of the goods as delivery at any particular time…”. provided for in Article 1734 of Civil Code. For its part, Eli Lilly in its cross claim argued that the delay was due solely to the negligence While it is true that common carriers are not obligated by of Maersk Line. law to carry and to deliver merchandise, and persons are not vested with the right to prompt delivery, unless such common carriers The Trial Court dismissed the complaint against Eli Lilly previously assume the obligation to deliver at a given date or time, and the latter withdrew cross claim but TC still held Maersk liable delivery of shipment or cargo should at least be made within a and CA affirmed with modifications. reasonable time.
While there was no special contract entered into by the
ISSUES: parties indicating the date of arrival of the subject shipment, petitioner nevertheless, was very well aware of the specific date when 1. W/N a cause of action exists against Maersk Line given the goods were expected to arrive as indicated in the bill of lading that there was a dismissal of the complaint against Eli itself. In this regard, there arises no need to execute another contract Lilly? Yes, but not under the cross claim rather because for the purpose as it would be a mere superfluity. In the case before Maersk was an original party. us, we find that a delay in the delivery of the goods spanning a period of two months and seven days falls was beyond the realm of 2. W/N Castillo is entitled to damages resulting from delay reasonableness. in the delivery of the shipment? Yes. This Court held Maersk Line liable for delay in the delivery RULING: The complaint was filed originally against Eli Lilly, Inc. of goods. An examination of the subject bill of lading that the subject as shipper-supplier and petitioner as carrier. Petitioner Maersk Line shipment was estimated to arrive in Manila on April 3, 1977. While being an original party defendant upon whom the delayed shipment is there was no special contract entered into by the parties indicating imputed cannot claim that the dismissal of the complaint against Eli the date of arrival, petitioner nevertheless, was very well aware of the Liily inured to its benefit. specific date when the goods expected to arrives as indicated in the bill lading. It is not disputed that the aforequoted provision at the back of the bill of lading, in fine print, is a contract of adhesion. Generally, There was delay in the delivery of the goods, spanning a contracts of adhesion are considered void since almost all the period of 2 months and 7 days falls way beyond the realm of provisions of these types of contracts are prepared and drafted only reasonableness. Petitioner never even bothered to explain the cause by one party, usually the carrier. The only participation left of the for delay of more than 2 months in the delivery of the goods. other party in such a contract is the affixing of his signature thereto, Therefore, Maersk Line is liable for breach of contract carriage hence the term "Adhesion". amounting to bad faith.