Supreme Court Rules on Bill of Lading
The Supreme Court Rules on on Delivery of Goods Without Bill of Lading
A bill of lading is a document that establishes the terms of a contract between two parties. It serves as evidence and a receipt for goods. There has been much confusion when it concerns the bill of lading and whether or not it has to be used. The decision made by the Supreme Court, which was passed on February 16, 2009, has been released to the public ten days from the judgment date and will come into effect on March 5, 2009. The Supreme Court’s decision on the delivery of goods without bill of lading has been based on a law that has already been released by the People’s Congress. Since there have been many different judgments dealing with the bill of lading cases by different levels of the People’s Congress, there is confusion going on between many different authorities and people. Finally, a clear legal guidance has been established on the judgment of like cases.
The decision is based on the laws and regulations of China, like the Contract law, the Maritime law, and the General Principles of Civil law. In addition, as long as no other governing law is violated, the Maritime law will continue to take hold. When there are no such provisions in the Maritime law, then the provisions in other laws such as the Contract law and General Principles law will be applied. So, according to article 71 of the Maritime law, the types of B/L covered are straight, order, and open.
When the transporter of the goods has delivered the goods to a person who isn’t the holder of the original bill of lading, then the delivery will be charged. At the same time, the delivery will also be charged when a person presents a false bill of lading to receive the goods. When it comes to the shipper, even though his name is not on the original bill of lading, he can claim losses. This is because the shipper has to pay for the extra costs such as the storage costs.
When the rights of the holder of the bill of lading are disrupted by the shipper, he is held responsible for the Civil liabilities. When the damages are caused by the delivery to the receiver, he isw allowed to ask that the shipper take on either the contractual abilities or the tort abilities. Even more so, both the receiver and the shipper will be required to compensate losses to the holder of the original bill of lading. The liabilities will still stay even if both parties have reached an agreement.
The amount of compensation for the losses is based on the value of the goods, the cost of freight, and the cost of insurance. The amount should not be limited by the Maritime law, even though it has put limitations on the shipper’s liabilities for the loss of the goods.
Even if the delivery has been charged, the shipper doesn’t always have to remain at fault. If the shipper is asked to hand over the goods to local authorities, if he was asked to get rid of the goods by a carrier of a straight order,, or if it was all delivered to one receiver when there are multiple, the shipper is not held responsible.
The claim of liabilities is subject to one year as the limitation.
