Bot(ched) removal and limited luck
A moving company had agreed to move a robot for a biotech company. The job was performed on the wrong date, where the robot had not yet been secured for transport and the robot was damaged. The court found that the moving company was liable, but could limit liability to DKK 50,000 per unit, and that the robot constituted a unit. The biotech company was therefore only awarded this amount.
A biotech company agreed its removal to other premises with a moving company. This included a robot used for experiments. The biotech company and the moving company made a contract that the robot was to be moved on 7 September. However, the moving company arrived on 25 August to move other robots and mistook one for another. The robot that was moved was therefore damaged as it had not been secured for transport. The biotech company claimed damages in the amount of DKK 4 million from the moving company.
The parties had agreed that the moving company’s general terms and conditions were to apply. These included a limit of liability of DKK 2 million per load and DKK 50,000 per unit. The biotech company argued that the limit did not apply when the moving company had moved the wrong robot. The moving company disagreed because the error was caused, they believed, by the instructions of the biotech company.
Liability – but limited
The court found that the moving company had moved the wrong robot on 25 August in spite of clear instructions that it was to happen on 7 September. The court also held that the robot had been situated in a different room to the room where the load the moving company was supposed to have moved, was located. The moving company was therefore liable, but its negligence not gross.
On the other hand, the court concluded that the moving company’s general term and conditions were agreed between the parties except for a few changes. The parties had agreed that the limit would apply per load rather than per full assignment. This did not mean, however, that the limit of DKK 50,000 per unit was inapplicable, and the terms applied although the robot was not meant to be moved on the day the damage occurred. The biotech company was also partly to blame, but this could not affect liability that was already limited.
The moving company’s limit was therefore limited at DKK 50,000.
IUNOs opinion
The case is interesting because the moving company derogated from instructions and because the goods that were damaged were not supposed to have been moved. Still, the moving company could rely on the limit of liability agreed in respect of removal of other goods
IUNO recommends seeking clarification whenever there is any doubt how instructions are to be understood.
[Maritime and Commercial High Court, decision of 31 March 2023 in case no. BS-14138/2022-SHR]
A biotech company agreed its removal to other premises with a moving company. This included a robot used for experiments. The biotech company and the moving company made a contract that the robot was to be moved on 7 September. However, the moving company arrived on 25 August to move other robots and mistook one for another. The robot that was moved was therefore damaged as it had not been secured for transport. The biotech company claimed damages in the amount of DKK 4 million from the moving company.
The parties had agreed that the moving company’s general terms and conditions were to apply. These included a limit of liability of DKK 2 million per load and DKK 50,000 per unit. The biotech company argued that the limit did not apply when the moving company had moved the wrong robot. The moving company disagreed because the error was caused, they believed, by the instructions of the biotech company.
Liability – but limited
The court found that the moving company had moved the wrong robot on 25 August in spite of clear instructions that it was to happen on 7 September. The court also held that the robot had been situated in a different room to the room where the load the moving company was supposed to have moved, was located. The moving company was therefore liable, but its negligence not gross.
On the other hand, the court concluded that the moving company’s general term and conditions were agreed between the parties except for a few changes. The parties had agreed that the limit would apply per load rather than per full assignment. This did not mean, however, that the limit of DKK 50,000 per unit was inapplicable, and the terms applied although the robot was not meant to be moved on the day the damage occurred. The biotech company was also partly to blame, but this could not affect liability that was already limited.
The moving company’s limit was therefore limited at DKK 50,000.
IUNOs opinion
The case is interesting because the moving company derogated from instructions and because the goods that were damaged were not supposed to have been moved. Still, the moving company could rely on the limit of liability agreed in respect of removal of other goods
IUNO recommends seeking clarification whenever there is any doubt how instructions are to be understood.
[Maritime and Commercial High Court, decision of 31 March 2023 in case no. BS-14138/2022-SHR]
Receive our newsletter
Aage
Krogh
PartnerSimilar
The team