#CaseSTUDY

These situations have posed challenges in delivering goods within specified timeframes, particularly when attempting to invoke the Hague-Visby Rules. However, by approaching each situation carefully, we have been able to explore creative solutions and achieve favorable outcomes for our clients. In the following section, we present some recent cases to illustrate these matters.

Case #1: The Limes Situation

The process of transporting goods from point A to point B through long distances can become a difficult task because of the parties involved, legal considerations, and potential risks. In the case study we present today, of a shipment of limes from Brazil to The Netherlands, unforeseen delays led to damage to the cargo upon arrival.

The cargo of limes, intended for delivery in The Netherlands, suffered damage due to an unexplained delay of 20 days. The cause of this delay remains unknown, adding further frustration to the situation.

Opponents of liability argued that they should not be held accountable for the delay, citing their Bill of Lading (BL) Terms and Conditions.

Furthermore, the opponents pleaded that limes have a long shelf life and, therefore, the delay should not have influenced the condition of the cargo. This argument, although logical to some extent, did not account for the negative impact of extended transportation time and unfavourable storage conditions on the perishable nature of the limes.

To address this issue, a strategic approach was devised, taking into account jurisdictions and at the same time applying some local pressure on the carrier. The jurisdictions included Brazil (The Port of Loading, POL), France (the location of the Bill of Lading, BL), and The Netherlands (The Port of Discharge, POD).

Local pressure was exerted on the carrier at their hub in India, as well as through the involvement of the office in Brazil. By leveraging local connections and resources, the aim was to ensure that the local law governing the situation would be applied, as it was more beneficial to the cargo interests, specifically under the principle of strict liability.

The implementation of the devised strategy had a positive result. Local pressure on the carrier led to a resolution in favour of the cargo interests. As a result, the carrier agreed to reimburse at least the freight charges, amounting to 30% of the overall claim. While this did not fully compensate for the damage suffered, it provided some relief and acknowledgment of the carrier’s responsibility in the matter.

This case highlights the importance of understanding the legal aspects involved, leveraging local resources, and advocating for accountability when faced with challenges in the transportation industry.

Case #2: Damaged Pineapples

Almost every transportation faces potential problems that can impact in the condition and timely delivery of cargo. When shipping pineapples from Costa Rica to The Netherlands, the cargo suffered damage due to a delay of nine days in the delivery.

Upon arrival in The Netherlands, the cargo of pineapples was discovered to be damaged. This damage was attributed to the mentioned delay of nine days during transit. The vessel assigned to transport the goods faced an unexpected challenge: port congestion in Rotterdam prevented it from berthing at its intended destination. For this matter, the cargo was discharged in Wilhelmshaven, Germany, instead.

Opponents of liability argued that they should not be held accountable for the delays, citing their Bill of Lading (BL) Terms and Conditions. They claimed that the port congestion situation in Rotterdam, which led to the diversion, was beyond their control.

To address this problem, a strategic approach was used, taking into consideration the applicable jurisdictions and the relevant legal principles.

The jurisdictions involved were Costa Rica (The Port of Loading, POL), Germany (the location of the Bill of Lading, BL), and The Netherlands (The Port of Discharge, POD).

It was established that, despite the unilaterally drafted BL Terms and Conditions, carriers could be held liable for delays unless force majeure, unforeseeable conditions, could be proven. The opponents’ argument regarding the port congestion situation was carefully evaluated. It was determined that the port congestion was a foreseeable circumstance known prior to the voyage, thereby excluding it from the force majeure category, which assumes an unavoidable and unforeseeable situation.

The positive outcome was reached by using a strategic approach. Through negotiations and discussions, a settlement was reached, resulting in the cargo interests being fully compensated for the claimed amount. This outcome demonstrated a fair resolution that acknowledged the carrier’s responsibility despite their initial opposition.

In this particular case, delays and damage to the cargo occurred due to port congestion and a diversion to Wilhelmshaven. However, through a strategic approach that considered the applicable jurisdictions and the legal principle of liability for delays, the cargo interests were successful in reaching a settlement.