#CaseSTUDY
Perishable Cargo Recovery on Delay Part. III – Troubled Pears
The third and final part of the document from the BARBUSS team highlights additional cases where supply chain disruptions caused a notable rise in delay claims.
These situations created challenges in meeting delivery schedules. Our team's approach involved a thorough examination of each case individually, seeking innovative solutions to address these issues and achieve positive outcomes for BARBUSS clients.
Regarding the transportation of pears by sea from Chile to Russia, we encountered several issues that required strategic resolution.
Firstly, upon the cargo’s arrival in Russia, it was evident that it had suffered damages due to an unexpected delay of 18 days. The main cause of this damage was traced back to an unusually long period of storage at the transshipment port in Antwerp, Belgium, primarily caused by a local strike.
In response to these challenges, opponents argued that they should not bear responsibility for the delays, citing their Bill of Lading terms and conditions. Furthermore, they exposed that strikes at transshipment ports were beyond their control. Additionally, they pointed out that the time gap between harvest/packing and the actual shipping date was unusually long, suggesting that the cargo left the port of loading in a mature condition.
To address these issues strategically, the BARBUSS team devised a versatile approach:
Applicable Jurisdictions: the case involved three jurisdictions: Chile (port of loading), Germany (Bill of Lading), and Russia (port of discharge).
Local Pressure: it was needed on the carrier at their hub in Germany and also
leveraged our office in Chile to engage with the carrier directly.
Legal Framework: The Hamburg Rules were applied, particularly at the port of loading in Chile. These rules explicitly held carriers liable for delays in certain circumstances.
Force Majeure Burden: The burden of proof to invoke a force majeure clause, specifically related to the strikes, rested with the carrier. It was incumbent upon them to demonstrate that the strikes were both unavoidable and unforeseeable, a criterion they ultimately failed to satisfy.
As a result of these efforts, an amicable settlement was achieved. The carrier agreed to compensate for 45% of the total claimed amount, resolving the matter in a mutually agreeable manner.
