Make sure to Coverall your bases!
An agreed deadline for delivery for carriage of dangerous goods had to be postponed due to regulations concerning air carriage. This led to all the goods being delivered too late and some of the goods, not classified as dangerous goods, did not make it on the flight. The court found that the claimant forwarder had delivered the goods too late for carriage under the contract and so the forwarder was not entitled to a refund of freight.
A forwarder made a contract with an airline regarding carriage of protective equipment, including hand sanitizer and coveralls, from Hong Kong to Arlanda in Sweden. It was agreed that the forwarder would deliver the goods to the airline’s agent in Hong Kong no later than 48 hours prior to departure, in order to prepare it for air carriage.
The hand sanitizer constituted dangerous goods, however, and under the applicable Hong Kong regulations it could not be delivered for carriage sooner than 24 hours prior to departure. Accordingly, the parties agreed that the hand sanitizer would be delivered later than 48 hours prior to departure.
The coveralls, however, were not dangerous goods and could be delivered as originally agreed. Still, all the goods were delivered within the 24-hour deadline only. This led to some of the coveralls missing the flight. The forwarder had chartered the entire aircraft and now claimed a partial refund of freight. The airline rejected this and considered that it was the fault of the forwarder itself that part of the goods missed the flight since the coveralls were delivered later than agreed. The forwarder referred to other regulations stating that goods had to be delivered only 6 hours prior to departure and that the 48-hour regulation was contrary to the practice of other airlines.
The coveralls were delivered too late
The court found that the parties had agreed that the dangerous goods were to be delivered no sooner than 24 hours prior to departure so that the agreement on delivery 48 hours before the flight had been altered. However, this did not apply to the non-dangerous goods. This was delivered 6 hours before departure and the court assessed that this was too late according to the agreement between the parties. In addition, it had not been proven that an alternative 6 hour deadline applied. The court therefore concluded that the forwarder had delivered the goods too late and could not expect that it would make it on the flight, and so the airline was not liable to refund partial freight.
IUNO’s opinion
The case shows the importance of care whether a change of plans leaves anything unclear. The part of a contract that is not changed is still valid and will take precedence to local practices. IUNO recommends, when contracts are changed, not to lose focus (like the Danish football team) on the parts that remain unchanged.
A forwarder made a contract with an airline regarding carriage of protective equipment, including hand sanitizer and coveralls, from Hong Kong to Arlanda in Sweden. It was agreed that the forwarder would deliver the goods to the airline’s agent in Hong Kong no later than 48 hours prior to departure, in order to prepare it for air carriage.
The hand sanitizer constituted dangerous goods, however, and under the applicable Hong Kong regulations it could not be delivered for carriage sooner than 24 hours prior to departure. Accordingly, the parties agreed that the hand sanitizer would be delivered later than 48 hours prior to departure.
The coveralls, however, were not dangerous goods and could be delivered as originally agreed. Still, all the goods were delivered within the 24-hour deadline only. This led to some of the coveralls missing the flight. The forwarder had chartered the entire aircraft and now claimed a partial refund of freight. The airline rejected this and considered that it was the fault of the forwarder itself that part of the goods missed the flight since the coveralls were delivered later than agreed. The forwarder referred to other regulations stating that goods had to be delivered only 6 hours prior to departure and that the 48-hour regulation was contrary to the practice of other airlines.
The coveralls were delivered too late
The court found that the parties had agreed that the dangerous goods were to be delivered no sooner than 24 hours prior to departure so that the agreement on delivery 48 hours before the flight had been altered. However, this did not apply to the non-dangerous goods. This was delivered 6 hours before departure and the court assessed that this was too late according to the agreement between the parties. In addition, it had not been proven that an alternative 6 hour deadline applied. The court therefore concluded that the forwarder had delivered the goods too late and could not expect that it would make it on the flight, and so the airline was not liable to refund partial freight.
IUNO’s opinion
The case shows the importance of care whether a change of plans leaves anything unclear. The part of a contract that is not changed is still valid and will take precedence to local practices. IUNO recommends, when contracts are changed, not to lose focus (like the Danish football team) on the parts that remain unchanged.
Receive our newsletter
Aage
Krogh
PartnerSimilar
The team