Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Act 3 Transpo
Act 3 Transpo
Act 3 Transpo
- In Maersk Line v. CA, the Court held that when a common carrier
undertakes to convey goods, the law implies a contract that they shall be
delivered at destination within a reasonable time, in the absence of any
agreement as to the time of delivery. But where a carrier has made an
express contract to transport and deliver properly within a specified time,
it is bound to fulfill its contact and is liable for any delay, no matter from
what cause it may have arisen.
1. Notice of Claim
- In Philippine American General Insurance Co., Inc. v. Sweet Lines,
Inc., the Court ruled that where the contract of shipment contains a
reasonable requirement of giving notice of loss of or injury to the goods,
the giving of such notice is a condition precedent to the action for loss or
injury or the right to enforce the carrier’s liability.
- The fundamental reason or purpose of such a stipulation is not to relieve
the carrier from just liability, but reasonable to inform it that the
shipment has been damaged and that it is charged with liability therefor,
and to give it an opportunity to examine the nature and extent of the
injury.
- Notice is a condition precedent and the carrier is not liable if notice is not
given in accordance with the stipulation, as the failure to comply with
such stipulation in a contract of carriage with respect to notice of loss of
claim for damage bars recovery for the loss or damage suffered.
2. 24-claim requirement
- In Aboitize Shipping Corporation v. Insurance Company of North
America, the Court ruled that the notice of claim must be made within
24 hours from receipt of the cargo if damage is not apparent from the
outside of the package. For the damages that are visible from the outside
of the package, the claim must be made immediately.
- Under Loadstar Shipping Co., vs. CA, it was stated therein that the
one-year period prescribed by the Carriage of Goods by Sea Act may be
applied suppletorily since neither the Civil Code nor the Code of
Commerce provides for a prescriptive period for the filing of actions.
- Any stipulation reducing the one-year period is null and void.
- The parties are the carrier, including the charterer who enters into a
contract of carriage with the shipper, and the shipper.
- No. As defined in the Civil Code and as applied to Section 3(6), paragraph
4 of the COGSA, “loss” contemplates merely a situation where no delivery
at all was made by the shipper of the goods because the same had
perished, gone out of commerce, or disappeared in such a way that their
existence is unknown or they cannot be recovered. It does not include a
situation where there was indeed delivery – but delivery to the wrong
person, or a misdelivery.
- Under Section 4 of COGSA, the carrier nor the ship is not liable for loss
or damage arising or resulting from the following: