We wpisie Who can assert claims of the contract of carriage of goods introduced the subject standing to claim damages in case of loss or damage to the shipment. The information in the article, however, pass a little if not properly identify the individual participants in the transport process. Unfortunately, in this respect is still a significant number of errors arising in particular from a large commitment of both parties to contracts of carriage and insurance to the content of bills of lading, even if these are filled in incorrectly.
Recipient
Both the transportation law and the CMR Convention provides for three main entities involved in road transport shipments: the sender, consignee and the carrier. A relatively minor problem of identification of the person makes the viewer - is a person, to which the shipment is to be delivered. The data, in particular the address entered in the consignment note (art. 38 paragraph. 2 Item 2 pr. wire. i art. 6 paragraph. 1 e point of the CMR Convention). As a rule, the recipient is not a party to the contract of carriage. It is however pointed, that the construction contract of carriage, in many cases takes the form of agreement to a third party (art. 393 k.c.), and the recipient use their ability to make changes to the contract of carriage or bill of lading or accepting the shipment (art. 53 pr. wire. i art. 12 CMR) becomes a party to the contract of carriage. Often accession to the contract of carriage by the receiver will result in the imposition of specific obligations on the recipient, eg. need to pay freightage (art. 51 paragraph. 1 pr. wire. i art. 13 paragraph. 2 CMR).
Carrier
A little more trouble making an indication of the carrier. Both the Civil Code Article. 794 and the right carriage art. 1 paragraph. 1 define the concept of the carrier as the entity, who in the course of undertaking difficult in the carriage of goods or passengers. This definition poses no special problems of interpretation and in the case of a simple contract of carriage between two entities without the use of other participants in the transportation carrier to identify the person it is obvious. Larger differences are, where the operator, which commissioned the transport is assisted by a subcontractor. Unfortunately, the rule is, that in such situations in the consignment is entered as a substitute carrier. This is because most of the prosaic reason, that the ready-printed waybills (with the completed data carrier) for loading bring their own carriers, where they are filled. Sometimes it happens then, that both the entity, carriage which had been commissioned and its insurance, consider, that the carrier responsible for the damage in the carriage to the person entitled is the subcontractor listed in the bill of lading as the carrier. Often accompanied by the assertion, that in such cases the person, originally awarded the contract of carriage, acts as a forwarder, who is responsible only for the fault in the choice of carrier, who actually performed the transport.
This position is not justified in law. The consignment note shall be without prejudice because of the content of the contract of carriage, but it should only be reflected. In art. 9 CMR indicate the, Although, that the waybill is evidence of the contract and the terms of the contract, but only in situations, when there is no evidence to the contrary. However, in most cases, the issue of consignment note is preceded by a message transport carrier usually orders by fax or by mail or by using a freight exchange. The content of the contract of carriage in such situations, determines the content of the order, is not, ultimately found themselves in the consignment. So if the order is clear, that a particular entity is committed to the consignment, he is part of the contract carrier is responsible for possible damage in shipment, even if the consignment will be entered in the sub-contractor. The primary function of the transporter performs the so-called. contracting carrier, and its subcontractor, who made the ultimate physical transport, is called. the actual carrier.
Contracting carrier and the shipper
Circumstance, that the contracting carrier alone does not transport, and its activity is limited to the transport contract the subcontractor, makes, that it is often confused with the freight forwarder. What's worse is often the same contracting carrier (which assisted him in his insurance) shipper shall be deemed to, in many cases even without a liability insurance carrier and limited to the purchase of liability insurance forwarder. Without going into detailed analysis of the differences between the contract and the contract of carriage, freight forwarding, should pay attention to this, that these agreements are completely different benefits. In a contract of carriage is transport of the consignment, while in the case of a forwarding sending or receiving shipments. It is crucial for the content of the agreement, and not its name. Commonly used in the transport industry so. forwarding orders are usually just orders the transport, they concern purely transport, rather than activities related to the sending or receipt of shipment. The Supreme Court in its judgment of 06.10.2004 ref. Akt I CK 199/04 and clearly stated, that acceptance, the question is just about the carriage of goods, and no action konkludentne not indicate the existence of additional clauses covering services related to transportation, induces a strict contract of carriage, forwarding contract and not. It should be emphasized too, that even a reservation in advance by the contracting carrier, that it intends to use subcontractors to carry out transport, does not make the forwarding contract agreement, if the subject remains a consignment, rather than sending.
Sender
Erroneous determination of the individual sender consignment is even more than the incorrect indication of the carrier. You can even say, that in cases where the contract of carriage includes transportation to the headquarters of the client package, incorrect filling of the consignment note in this respect is the rule not the exception. Frequently because of the sender is part of the body, whom the consignment was loaded on the carrier vehicle. Meanwhile, in the doctrine and case law there is no doubt, that the sender is subject, which includes a contract of carriage with the carrier. In many cases it will be a person, which also seems to load carrier. Many times, however, the loading will be done by a completely different entity not party to the contract of carriage. This happens usually when the sender is at the same time as the recipient, eg. arranging for transportation of specific goods to the carrier from the counterparty to the seat of the sender. In this case, the contractor shall not be regarded as the sender (if the carrier did not commission anything), and it only fully function shipper. The role of the shipper is not specified in the regulations, So all the activities carried on in behalf of and for the sender. This is m.in. the content art. 47 paragraph. 2 pr. wire. which is, that person, which gives the carrier the shipment for carriage, considered to be authorized by the sender to perform all activities related to the contract of carriage. Accordingly, all such errors shipper. of improper filling the bill of lading or cargo allocation shall be borne by the sender and affect its position in a possible dispute with the carrier. This is particularly the case, when an incorrect loading causes specific damage to property of the carrier (np. in the form of a penalty imposed by the competent authorities of the carrier too much emphasis on the axle of the vehicle).
What are the consequences of erroneous filling the bill of lading for the individual sender? As mentioned above,, contents of the bill of lading creates only a presumption of certain conditions of the contract of carriage, which may be rebutted by other evidence. So if other evidence shows, that the sender is in fact an entity other than indicated in the consignment, bill in this regard will not matter. Summary view is grounded in the judgment of the Supreme Court of 03.09.2003 r. ref. Akt II CKN 415/01, which states, under Rule. 4 i 9 paragraph. 1 CMR person who is not a party to a contract of carriage can not be regarded as the sender only for this reason, that was identified as the consignor in the consignment.
These observations have lead to one conclusion - documents, waybills are performing an important role in the implementation freight shipments, However, analysis of the contents of the contract of carriage, in particular, in determining its pages should be based primarily on documents prepared prior to shipment. The content of the bill of lading should be merely a consequence of the earlier findings between the parties.
Thank you for the excitement of the problem. One of my customers have the matter, where the principal blame for the shipper, a contribution that will provide us with arguments on, which will be in May.
We are happy to find out, what would be the end of the case.
Of course let you know how the matter will end, at least in the first instance.
Hello,
I have this question: whether the situation, the sender does not want to pay for the international carriage of goods (said, with no liquidity problems) can be from the recipient, that the goods received and signed the bill of lading (virtue of the abovementioned Article. 13 paragraph. 3 CMR) the carriage of such claim, that is attributable to the mandate received from the sender (bill of lading did not indicate at all that amount)?
Unfortunately art. 13 paragraph. 2 CMR is not an exact equivalent to the Polish art. 51 transport law. Therefore, to claim from the recipient, it is necessary, charge carrier to be included in the consignment. Polish law does not set such a condition from this point of view it is preferable for the carrier, although some commentators are of the view of traffic rights, that also in this case the claim should be included in the consignment.
But I fear, that even if the legislation allowed the investigation of claims from the recipient, and so the chance of a voluntary payment would be small. Experience has taught since, that the public – completely unaware of their obligations – generally refuse to pay freightage, referring the question to the sender. Case and so goes to court so, and in this case, if it's liquidity problems, court judgment, and so may be enforced from the sender.
Today we learned, that our sender is about to go into receivership, (although we are yet to confirm), and that is from Austria rather poor chances that you download something from him, we thought, with the recipient could have gone better, but apparently not. Anyway, thank you very much for the express response:-)
Indeed, the situation does not look very interesting, but unfortunately you are not the exception. The global crisis caused, that once a reliable and Austrian German companies do not pay the bulk of its obligations. As long as the refusal results from pure calculation, not bad – is usually possible to bring an action in Poland and abroad have fallen. Worse, if the company really gets into trouble – chances of recovering anything was declining rapidly.
Shall notify the, about which we wrote: the court awarded the entire amount to the claimant, considering the same arguments as described in the article, that compensation may be obtained from the, who commissioned us to transport, and not the entity, from whom we received the goods only.
Congratulations great 🙂. In my case, the decision will be made probably in July, I hope so, also that soon I will be able to announce the result of 🙂
As announced, I am pleased to inform, that also in my business on the court considered, that the sender corresponding to the incorrect loading of the vehicle and the resulting penalty for exceeding the permissible axle is an entity, which commissioned the transport, and not the, who has actual loading 🙂
Hello,
And I have a question somewhat more złorzone.
I have a situation in which the meaning of transport regulations my company is not the sender – is exactly as in your description shipper. We give you arrange transportation.
The problem begins at the moment when the goods are released from consignment. At the time of removal of the T1 document my firm acts as the sender – within the meaning of customs regulations.
How should be properly listed shipping rules ?
I mean, can I treat it separately ?
Regards
From the point of view of transport in the consignment as the sender (Item. 1) should be entered in the company organizing the transport, a shipper in the place of loading or item. 4. The vast majority of bills of lading, I have seen in such situations, the shipper was listed in first position. This introduces unnecessary confusion, but if there are any other documents showing, who actually ordered transport, such an error in the consignment does not carry with them no consequences. I also greet 🙂
Hello, I do not know if I understood, can or can not be recovered from the payment of freightage obiorcy if the sender refuses to pay. I understand, that the recipient did not pay voluntarily, but through the courts if I have a chance to order the carriage?
Provides legal typical response – it depends 🙂 On the basis of national operations can successfully assert claims also on the recipient – the court may be brought simultaneously to the sender and recipient on the basis of Article. 51 pr. wire. It is different in transportation subject to the CMR Convention – there sue the recipient is only possible, if the receivable is shown on the bill of lading, which in practice generally does not happen.
Hello, thanks for the quick reply, and in such a situation, When commissioning the transport sender is listed in the cmr, I am a registered carrier in the cmr. Between us is forwarding that disappeared (scammers). I, that the customer does not have the shipping paid for the execution of the service. Can I in some way from its duty to enforce. I wrote a letter asking for assignments but do not want to accept, do not want to talk.
If he was on the way a broker, in practice there will be two contracts of carriage. One between the sender and “forwarding” and the second between “forwarding” and the carrier. At the same “shipping” in this second agreement acts as the sender (so called because the person who arranges for transportation). Forwarding write in quotes, probably because it is simply the contracting carrier. Carrier is not so any claims to the sender, because it does not connect with it no legal relationship. There may be only against “forwarding”.
Hello,
I have a question regarding arrears in.
When the conveyance was made and the order spedycjyne was concluded with a shipper and forwarder has issued an invoice for the transportation to us and we will be paid within the time limit is that the subcontractor, that is, the carrier which performed the carriage may apply to us asking to pay the price, because they received money from the shipper, who commissioned him to carry? Furthermore, if the invoices are dated July / August last year, whether the matter is not outdated?
In the example described, at first glance seems to be, that the carrier has no claims to the sender. After the first it is doubtful whether a shipper or freight forwarder rather the contracting carrier. In the latter case there is no doubt, that the carrier has a claim only to their principal. However, even if indeed there is a freight forwarder, It usually includes an agreement with the carrier on its own behalf, and not on behalf of a client, so the carrier could not have continued to demand payment from the sender. In this case it seems, that it did, since the forwarder issued the invoice for the total transport to the sender (otherwise shall only invoice for your commission, and the carrier's invoice shall be issued to the sender). The game could still go recipient liability for the obligations of the carrier pursuant. 51 pr. wire., but first the question does not arise, whether the principal was also the recipient of the goods, and secondly, they are serious doubts whether such liability relates to claims against the carrier's main subcontractors (seems to, not).
As for the limitation – rather in the national carriage is already time-barred, here the period of limitation shall be a maximum of one year and 3 months within a year if demand for payment was sent and there was an answer (or as some say, is added to the period between sending the summons and its service, but this is disputed). The clarity of the CMR Convention is no longer, as the standard period of limitation is one year and 3 months from the date of the contract of carriage, but the question is whether this period can be extended by up to 3 months under the Polish law (I personally think, so, but the decision met standing on a different position).
Hello,
If I am wrong to ask for rectification, discuss a statute but the sender ( subject, who enters into a contract with the carrier ) in the field of road transport.
Does that also apply to rail transport?
This rule also applies to transport by rail – the sender is always the entity ordering the carriage.
Welcome back,
Please small hint:
Company A of Gdansk is the shipper and company B sells the goods on the basis of FCA Gdańsk.
Company B then sells the goods at C from Germany also based on FCA Gdańk.
Firm C is organizing on their behalf and transport commissions in with Danzig to Germany, that is, by law the Sender.
Broadcasters is the responsibility of issuing the bill of lading.
Who may issue and sign the bill of lading, taking into account, C that the company will not come from Germany to Gdansk in order to issue and sign a letter?
The relationship of C with the carrier it is the sender and is responsible for issuing the bill of lading. In practice, the bill has a fill in the implementing of the obligation under the sales contract with B. In turn, for the proper fulfillment of the bill of lading company B shall be responsible before the company C, because such an obligation arises from the essence of the contract of sale between B and C.
I, it's a little confusing, but in the case of transport processes of transactions is often considerable, So all you need to transcribe the prime factors.
Thank you,
Is the company a part of completing the waybill as the sender of C ( pole nr 1 CMR )?
Is Company A in box 22 ( Signature and stamp of the sender ) enter their own data, and shall be signed and put his own stamp? ( on what you think Item. 2 art. 47 Transport law ).
So this should be done properly. In addition, well data from A to enter the place of loading, that there was no doubt where her signature in the sender's signature.
Hello
With reference to your comment:
“The relationship of C with the carrier it is the sender and is responsible for issuing the bill of lading. In practice, the bill has a fill in the implementing of the obligation under the sales contract with B. In turn, for the proper fulfillment of the bill of lading company B shall be responsible before the company C, because such an obligation arises from the essence of the contract of sale between B and C.
I, it's a little confusing, but in the case of transport processes of transactions is often considerable, So all you need to transcribe into prime factors.”,
I have a question which implies the obligation to fill the bill of lading.
You say in, that the essence of the sale agreement.
But whether this is due to contractual provisions?
And what if I will not write in the contract of obligation to fulfill the letter?
Thank you
I confess, this is my personal view, and the subject was not discussed so far, both in case law and literature. But I believe, that such an approach is justified both by the existing practice (shipper, in practice, always signed waybills and check, whether the data contained therein are correct) as well as being an obligation of good. Where the issue is the product into the hands of the carrier, the seller should have a Proof of transmission charge and a description of its condition, So should this bill to unsubscribe. I feel for any irregularities in the filling of the letter przyjmowałbym full responsibility seller. While certainly problematic to expect from the seller, that correctly typed into the address space of the letter of delivery, if you have not been informed about it. Without a doubt, therefore, in the interest of the buyer is, that the relevant provisions included in the sales contract. Practice shows, however,, that almost never does not do.
Hello,
I have a question about the sender's responsibility for transport costs due to the carrier where the Polish broadcaster (subsidiary) transport in the order indicated, that transport costs borne by another entity (German parent company) and the goods have been delivered yet picked up by another entity (recipient of the mother's daughter in Germany). The carrier has issued an invoice for his daughter's mother in the transport order, which, however, it did not pay, therefore, the carrier issued a corrective invoice and order those costs the sender or a subsidiary and obtained a court order for payment.
In my reasoning transport order with the indicated method of payment made by the carrier is a contract between the parties and the carrier can not unilaterally change the terms just because, that the parent company has not paid its invoice, relying only on the, that the list of CMR is a subsidiary of the sender and the actual originator of the service, which was performed in accordance with the order.
I greet
The
Unfortunately I can not agree. In my opinion, the result of this construction contract, that the parties to the agreement are wholly-owned subsidiary and the carrier. It is in fact a subsidiary of Transport commissioned and included a contract with the carrier. Parties may of course make an appointment, that the remuneration, that the sender should pay for transportation, will be paid by another person. This is called. contract for the provision by a third party. In this case, the consignor has, that the third party – parent company – pay the salary of the contract of carriage. But it is not binding on the parent company, which after the agreement did not contain. Stąd w art. 391 k.c. expressly provided, that if the third party fails to comply with the provision of, for which a commitment was in the contract, person, which provides the, that the third party made a commitment, responsible for this, that the third party did not do. Therefore, properly called the performance of an obligation of broadcasters. For if the claim is directed against the parent company, action would probably be dismissed, because the parent company zaprzeczyłaby, would you ever include a contract with the carrier.
Please help
I am a recipient of the goods, commissioned an international transport company, has hired a subcontractor (carrier )Company B
I received an invoice for payment from the company A – I paid it faithfully.
After a year I got a request for payment from the company B on the basis of Polish transport law art51.
At the moment I am summoned to court by the company B(summoned to a compromise agreement).z art 51 with the notation “CRM The Convention does not regulate in any way the responsibility of the recipient terms of the carrier by way of remuneration for the contract of carriage, as it clearly makes the provision of Article 51 of the Polish law transport law. Consequently, the most reasonable to demand payment from the recipient towru transportable under Article 51”
Do I have to pay a second time ?
How can the court to comment on the case presented above ?
In my opinion, the claims are completely unfounded. Anyway, the reason it is aware of, when summoned by to compromise rather than action, you probably never will not go to court. In this case the court of anything is not resolved, only finds, that there was no settlement between the parties (I assume, not you intend to amicably agree to pay).
Hello,
From your explanation shows,the sender of the goods(in this role, there are also pośernik or forwarding)is responsible for loading the goods,its distribution on pojeździe.Jak be held liable for something that can not be influenced?Freight loading ordering of goods is not present at the loading,physically there is a real command of the carrier and the commodity-nadawca.Czyżby right (and its interpretation…) allowed impose fines for overloading operators,that can not have any influence on the loading?
First, the shipper loads the kind on behalf of the sender, So at least for this reason can be considered the responsibility of the sender. Second, in many cases depend on the mandates of incurring the guilt and the relationship between the sender, a shipper may lead to the conclusion, that the sender does not accept guilt.
hello,
We used the services of shipping companies. the goods have been delivered with a delay- by which the recipient has imposed on us a fine of this title.
letter of complaint sent to the forwarding 40dni after unloading, due to the fact, the invoice we received for a given transport after unloading 32dni. the date of the invoice indicating the passage of 20 days of the unloading. I will add,that we had an insight into the forwarding e-mail correspondence- carrier, where the speech was that we-that is, the sender will charge shipping costs and carrier specycja.
shipping now washes his hands of the compensation, because the complaint received later than 21 days (CMR Convention, the forwarding order was marked, ytrasport that takes place on the basis of CMR)
Please let us know if forwarding is right, or maybe they were just a mediator or set FV very late date the complaint 21 days do not apply?
@ Stapciu
A recipient of the carrier delay advertised in writing within 21 days of the unloading? If you do not, the recipient of fault and that can be the basis, to refuse to pay his fines. Impact on the behavior of the term invoice does not matter. If the carrier is not notified within, to charge him for the delay can not count.
Hello,
My question concerns the certification of hearsay information.
If the company sells the product and offer free or ex says (Incoterms'ów not apply) the conditions which specifies the responsibility of Kc(?). If a customer buys the goods and the supply of it is our responsibility to charge ends when loading the car carrier chosen by us. For any irregularities such as. untimely delivery or damage in transit toraru recipient can only file a complaint or grievance to the carrier and to us as the sender?
@ Guzik11
Policy risk passes to the buyer defined in Article. 544 i 548 k.c. If nothing else the written sales contract, significantly the risk passes to the customer upon receiving the goods carrier.
Hello Sir Jack,
Article ask for an explanation. Art. 544. § 1. namely the concept of the place of performance and the place of destination, and provide an example.
In accordance with Article. 454 k.c. place of performance is the kind that is, for example, the debtor's. in the case of the sale of. A destination place, where this thing has finally hit.
Hello, I have the following problem. The company operates a warehouse for which they are supplied loads from the EU to the national wbylego malfunction and the USSR , but it is not the buyer , seller or the client for carriers, who shall deliver the goods. Does przpadku non-payment made by the principal transport, the carrier may require the company to pay for the service, citing the fact , we noted that the unloading of the stock.?
@ Dildo
If the recipient of the bill of lading, Theoretically, such a responsibility. However, since we are talking about shipments from the EU, principles are applicable CMR, and these require, that funds are included in the bill of lading. Because almost never, recipient usually does not assume responsibility.
Hello. I have a question in this topic. The client has commissioned transport then declared bankruptcy before you paid for the service. In connection with this I can claim payment from the recipient of the goods?
@ Euro-Shipping
It depends on what was the transport and what was the position of the carrier, but in many cases it is actually possible.
Good morning,
Thank you for an interesting article on the uneasy issues concerning the role of each individual in the contract of carriage.
As stated in the article:
“in doctrine and case law is not in doubt, that the sender is an entity, who enters into a contract of carriage with the carrier.”
and
“if the sender is at the same time as the recipient, eg. arranging for transportation of specific goods to the carrier from the counterparty to the seat of the sender (…) contractor can not be considered as a broadcaster (if the carrier did not commission anything), and it only fully function shipper”
But I'm intrigued by the question of whether there is any possibility to divide the role of principal transport from the sender shipment. For example, if the recipient of the goods (or forwarder) can, acting on its own behalf, enter into a contract of carriage with the carrier to a third party, so that the sender was a third party?
The execution of such a contract of carriage, of course, would depend on whether the sender will proceed to its implementation and delivery, and the carrier will bill. Nevertheless, the obligation of the carrier to transport a arose to have the moment of receipt of the order from the customer. Note belongs the, that the contract of carriage is a consensual agreement, and as defined in Article. 744 CC essence of the contract of carriage is the only obligation of the carrier to transport for remuneration of persons or goods. And I can see the obstacles to such a commitment has been made by the carrier to a person other than the sender, requiring the payment of compensation for transport.
Do you think that in this way can be to separate the person of the principal and the sender?
@ Thomas L.
It's a very interesting question. Personally, I am of the opinion, the separation of the principal persons of the sender is not possible. A person who is party to an agreement with the carrier is always the sender. Of course it may assign their rights to another party, but still the contractor will remain the sender and the rest will be the obligations under this agreement.
I understand, that the intention is to, that the contract was to be, that the other person will be the sender. I would have seen some solutions here, but none of them leads to the separation of the client from the sender, but the practical effect is the same.
First, you can provide in the contract of carriage, that a third party without the consent of the carrier to join the rights and obligations of broadcasters. Then physically agreement is concluded with a single entity, but may accede to another entity. Separation of functions is not here, as a new entrant simply join in place of ordering, but the effect is the same.
Second, it can be assumed, that the first agreement is a preliminary agreement concluded pursuant to Article. 391 k.c. This is the client agrees to, that a third party will enter into a contract of carriage. Here, too, there is no separation of functions, since the first contract is not a contract of carriage, but the desired effect can be achieved.
Hello,
Uczesticzę in the sale of foreign goods company care about the proper filling of documents cmr zwort vatu to recover from the IRS.
P-maker
S-Seller
M-my business intermediary
O-recipient
My company buys merchandise from S, issuing me Fvat and he buys the goods from the seller. My company issued FVAT The recipient, which is a foreign company.
The receiver arranges transportation. Receives the goods from the manufacturer, me as a broker does not have to load the goods.
How, then, duly filled in documents? And who should be completed?
I will be grateful for an answer,
Regards
Magda
@ Magda
Transport documents should reflect the content of the contract of carriage, So in this case, if the contract involves carriage of the order recipient to the carrier and the transport of company P and O, About this should be in the sender field, P in the place of loading and About in the recipient field. Ani S, or M on the bill of lading will not. Consignment sender fills, but in this case the carrier will likely.
Good morning,
First of all, thank you for your blog. Given how little is available case law and commentary in the provisions of the CMR Convention and transport law of the Lord blog is one of the most reliable sources of information.
I can not find the answer to the following question, So allow me to ask you a question about the accuracy of data in order to transport and consignment. International transport agreement has been concluded between the consignor and the carrier leading Polish. Commissioned leading carrier transport contractors, who performed the carriage. As a result, incorrect information indicated by the sender to the main carrier, and subcontractors and erroneous data included in the consignment vehicle involved in the carriage was stopped, and the additional costs incurred subcontractor. From whom and on what basis can they assert? Is it only the principal transport? and also or only directly from the sender?
Is Article 7 Convention or 72 transport law may be applicable and the subcontractor in general may occur on the basis of their claims directly to the shipper?
Thank you in advance for your help.
Regards.
@ Sender
Thank you very much for your kind words.
As to the question – I do not know what the character was wrong to enter data into the bill of lading. If it has led to the violation of traffic regulations, in particular, with a permissible gross vehicle weight, in the light of Article. 43 paragraph. 2 pr. wire. load would be the basis for the shipper, unless the loading took place in Poland. Nevertheless, że art. 43 paragraph. 2 is located in the part concerning the contract of carriage, and so it should be a civil, with respect to the shipper seems, that this standard is administrative in nature, so its violation constitutes a tort, which authorizes the subcontractor to recover damages despite, that the shipper is not bound by any legal relationship. If the load has been taking place in Poland, You can only seek redress from the principal or main carrier.
Loading took place in Poland, was performed by a subcontractor. Incorrect information provided initially by the award of the main carrier transport order and entered in the order, and later by the Consignor and entered in the consignment note related to the type and nature of transported goods (while it was not a dangerous goods). The goods were properly classified and had to be neutral, of its imports had not involve any additional responsibilities Administrative and. The carrier has made rapid verification of this information and the product covered by the carriage agreed with documentation. In addition, according to the classification of the documents referred to in the general merchandise actually be regarded as neutral. According to the carrier, he had neither the obligation nor the possibility of closer examination of the adoption of the nature of the transported goods orders, therefore have in this area based on information from the sender and the main carrier. In the course of entry to another country within the EU customs authorities, however, have become a problem, that not all the formalities have been completed. Though, today that no formal proceedings have not been instituted, and there has not been any decision imposing any penalties or fees, the car was occupied thus generating a loss of carrier-contractors. In addition come costs associated with charge, they will have to pay for the reception of the car. Do you think that in this situation it can and on what basis or recover costs and lost profits? From which of the entities (customer for trucking of the sender)?
Hello,
Hello,
Please help as quickly as possible…
Firma A, Production, having a magazine, Company B sells cargo (shipping). Company B Company C commissions (the carrier) transport of cargo from Company A to Company D which is the recipient of.
If Company A Company B sold the cargo (shipping), I understand that the Sender (principal) is the company B to the Company C, a shipper is Company A. So Company A of the purchased goods forwarding, is responsible for the cargo to be loaded at C ( in accordance with Art. 43 paragraph. 2 p. wire.)?
@ Seba
The provision of Article. 43 paragraph. 2 pr. wire. This strange creature, which is not really like me. The legislature evidently forgotten, transportation law is that the rules of private and threw respect for the administative part. The provision of Article. 43 paragraph. 1 concerns the relationship between the parties to the contract of carriage, a załadowca, while non-client, this is not a party. It may therefore be, że art. 43 paragraph. 2 pr. wire. contrary to Article. 43 paragraph. 1 pr. wire. to norma administracyjnoprawna, and everyone has an obligation to comply with it regardless of whether it is a party to the contract of carriage. Violation of this provision, in turn, gives rise to liability on the basis of Article. 415 k.c. So if there was a breach in my view, both the carrier has a claim to the company B for breach of the contract of carriage (the sender is responsible for the proper loading) as well as the A tort, but it is difficult to say, or judicial practice will go in this direction.
Hello,
I have a question regarding payment tzw.odwróconej by courier service. The recipient has to make a payment, however, refused. I just was passing the parcel, However, the courier entered me as the sender. Accordingly,, I was charged for the service and the fee of the amount 47,70 Net zł for refusing payment by the recipient. I was looking for a recipe on the traffic, but found nothing. Whether the imposition of such a fee in accordance with the Polish law?
Thank you for your help,
Regards
@ Martin
Who ordered the carriage courier?
In the end,,I commissioned a courier transport. Let me start from the beginning, is quite complicated situation. Firma A (recipient) B-wysylajtaniej.pl commissioned carriage. Wysyłajtaniej.pl sent us a bill of lading. I received w / in the letter, and I had to pass it along with a parcel courier. Unfortunately, I broke the printer, So courier proposed, waybill that manually prints. On the new consignment, I was listed as the sender. Payment was made the recipient / third party. I would add, that the bill of lading is not my signature. When writing a new consignment note has been changed no letter, So wysylajtaniej.pl refused payment. The transaction has been canceled, a A (recipient) received a refund. Not paid, however, the transport package with the result that the company charged me shipping freight and payment reversed. I want to pay for the carriage of, but do not feel obligated to pay the extra money. In such a situation, I can avoid a reverse payment? What is the legal basis for such payment, such information can not be obtained from the shipping company.
Regards
@ Martin
If you do not commissioned transport, a firma B, she is responsible for the payment of. Lord was not even a party to the contract of carriage.
Also, I, I'm not a party. However, the transport company, based on the bill of lading costs charged me. After discussions with the customer, I came to the conclusion, that the payment of services, to have peace of mind. I wonder just what to do to avoid the payment of additional charge reversed…
Hello and what to enter in this situation cmr:
Company A buys goods or I at Dap company B and company C sells that tells me the company will rozłdaunek D?
No one can not help us…
@ David
And who commissioned the transport carrier?
Buying on DAPI which carries the manufacturer to the customer
@ David
Here, much depends on the circumstances. As a broadcaster for sure on CMR should be the principal transport or B. I assume, This means that Mr. A tells B, where the goods are to be delivered. These data are entered in the bill of lading. If so before you have received the delivery information, that the goods are to be delivered to the company D, informuje Pan B, that this should be address to the bill of lading.
that is, in sum
broadcaster B
C receiver
loading space B
the place of unloading D
so? CMR is not on the company A.
@ David
CMR reflects the parties to the contract of carriage, not sold. The sender is always the, which contracts the carriage, So if A does not do, while not a recipient, because the product goes to C, that the consignment does not exist.
Thank you for all the answers. The case with the DAP is therefore clear.
And in the case of FCA – which enter into positions 1- 4 wiemw practice difficult to achieve – A sender is a company loading place the recipient company B, C Company D of landing – but who has to sign the pos 24 recipient (firma C) if the company to which the goods actually arrived (firma D)?
Hello
Is there such a provision in Polish law or CMR for the situation where the grantor refrained from transport to demand payment of the sender (Manufacturer of transported goods) which is its commissioning ? The problem concerns international carriage from Czech Republic – Poland. Broadcaster and producer goods is a Czech company, while commissioning the transport of Polish shipping company.
@ Seba
There is no such provision. You can try to hit on it indirectly, directing a claim to the recipient or purchaser. Such a person may experience with pretensions to the seller and make, that this pay debts, although it is not obliged to do so. But keep in mind, that in the case of international responsibility of the recipient is subject to duty of the carrier to enter the bill of lading.
Welcome and please reply.
Firma B (forwarder or how it turns out the so-called contracting carrier) A company commissioned us to provide the goods to Germany, the sender is Company C. During transport in Germany fined for poor load securing, which is fine paid. We believe that we have not been properly and sufficiently informed about how to make a proper transport due to the nature of the consignment (goods). Does the claim for reimbursement amount for us to have the mandate from C and B from the company ? or perhaps jointly and severally liable. I also ask that in the information on the legal basis.
I would also like to find out when ew. A claim will be barred Company?
@ James
If the claims arise from abnormalities in the loading of the consignment responsibility of the B to C. If the improper performance of the obligations of the information provided to the carrier – although I do not know, whether such liability will be here, because they do not know the details – claims are only to B. Przedawniać will after 15 months after the conclusion of the contract.
If I understand art 7 CMR, liability for damages resulting from any inaccuracy or inadequacy of responsibility of the sender and so the company C. Please explain.
@ James
The explanation is in the article. The sender is not subject, which loads the goods, and the one who gives the order of carriage. In this case, from the perspective of a sender of the carrier B, because it's from the carrier was commissioned.
Please have the answer to the last question. Or , if ew. liability for damages resulting from any inaccuracy or inadequacy of the company would incur C, can we talk about 3 year limitation period due to gross negligence ?
C company not only has B *
@ James
It is generally accepted, the extended period of limitation provided for in Article. 32 CMR refers only to claims against the carrier, and not vice versa.
Hello
Sir Paul at the beginning I wanted to thank you for keeping this blog today because it is the only source of factual approach to transport regulations.
Of course, like most speakers will ask the Lord for advice because my situation is very confusing, and I heard a dozen interpretation in this case, who is responsible.
Transport was commissioned carrier on the route from Italy to Polish unloading (handling) on the Cargo with final delivery in wschodzie.Towar after loading has been on the customs agency covered by the declaration EX for export of goods from UE.Przewoźnik about everything has been informed prior to the order and on the contract przewozu.Był one of the 12 carriers on the relationship we all rode razem.Na cmr list of heading No 3 that was exactly written technical unloading is in PL and finally to the east.
Each of the 12 carriers have the same discharged cmr and each carrier has a so-written cmr.Po briefing several carriers were detained and only one has been imposed for failure to CEMT mandate in accordance with Italian law transportowym.Reszta controlled passed inspection because such permission posiadali.Przewoźnik states that do not permit CEMT It was required because of the commodity was going only to the PL and the mandate given by the bad print the document cmr and responsibility for this lies nadawca.Czy Sir Paul could you lighten me this confusing topic since the sender (not the shipper) does not feel at all guilty because it says that the document was written all cmr accordance with the facts and the responsibility of the carrier was to have the appropriate authorization in accordance with the law of lading włoskim.Nadmienię before making an order that the carrier has been informed about the final destination of the goods of the declaration ex and he wrote that knows about it and goes so notorycznie.Co you think of that, Thank you very much in advance for pomoc.Pozdrawiam
@ Mariusz
The subject is complex, as a matter of fact the Italian transport does not occur directly to Russia, So it does not have the obligation to have the appropriate authorization. I realize, that the Italian practice is different, but the Italian carrier should complain to charge penalty decisions. Notwithstanding the foregoing, if the consignment has been completed correctly, ie. indicated in the, that unloaded in Poland, and that the carrier had to order, that the transport is scheduled to Polish, in my opinion there is no basis to charge the sender mandate.
Hello.
My situation is as follows:
I am a broker (P), I bought the goods from the farmer (R) and sell it to the consignee (The).
Recipient (The) he arranged for transportation and sent the farmer (R).
CMRka was printed incorrectly, ie:
– in the sender is a farmer (R), and I know that it should be the recipient of (The), because he took care of transport,
– in the recipient's me broker (P), and should be re-recipient (The),
– destination and loading properly.
Now I have a question:
The recipient of the goods advertised, So if that is incorrectly printed CMRka some evidence in court?
Do not be a problem with the recovery of VAT tax based on the erroneous CMRki?
Thank you and best regards.
But I have a problem, so the actual carrier received the request from the contracting carrier transporting the goods, which has been qualified at the border for smuggling (wrong, but it does not matter),resulting in the loss of requisition TIRA and carrier (huge financial loss) – from whom the carrier should claim compensation?
contracting carrier also is innocent when it comes to the fact that smuggling, he did not know.
The sender of the goods, however, had a contractual agreement with the carrier and not actual but it seems, that he was to blame (or recipient).
Is the actual carrier may also sue the sender (who was and shipper) ?
@ Krzychu
Waybill is only proof of the contract of carriage and its contents, if there is no other evidence. So if it turns out transport orders, wrongly discharged CMR should be relevant. The same is the case for tax.
@ Catherine
Actual carrier does not have a contract with the original sender and could only occur on the basis of tort, but then he would have to prove, that the sender knew about smuggling. Safer apply to the contracting carrier, who is the originator of the relationship with the actual carrier and is responsible for the damage to him.
Thank you.
But it took care of the transport recipient, and he issued the order for the freight transport.
@ Krzychu
That's what I'm saying – letter does not reflect the actual state of, So given that the recipient of transport order, will have a special meaning evidence.
So what is needed for the IRS in this case,?
Hello, mój kierowca dostał we Francji mandat za złe wypisanie dokumentu CMR co potraktowali jak brak CMR, chodziło o brak daty załadunku oraz brak dokładnego opisu towaru oraz brak danych przewożnika. Kara to 750e. Dokumenty CMR wypełniał nadawca czyli pracownik firmy z której bralismy towar. Mam pytanie czy mogę odzyskać pieniazki za mandat?
@ Magda
Nadawca ponosi odpowiedzialność za treści listu przewozowego, więc można domagać się pokrycia kary. Jest jednak wysoce prawdopodobne, że podniesie zarzut przyczynienia się, skoro kierowca wziął nieprawidłowo wypełniony list. Jest więc duża szansa, że sąd podzieliłby odszkodowanie między obie strony.
Tak czytam i czytam i sie doczytać nie mogę….
Sprzedałem towar firmie z CH która wiezie towar na Ukrainę. Transport organizuje firma z CH. I Ja go ładuje przewoźnikowi który bezpośrednio wywozi go z PL na Ukrainę.
Kto ma się podpisać w pozycji 22 na CMR ? Czy moe ja się tam podipisać czy powinien nadawca z pozycji 1 czyli firma z CH ?
@ Michael
W praktyce podpisuje się załadowca, ale działa w tym wypadku w imieniu nadawcy.
Hello
Otrzymałem od spedycji “forwarding order” na wykonanie transportu międzynarodowego.
Załadunek nastąpił jak to zwykle bywa, nie w ich magazynie tylko u ich klienta.
Klient ten wystawił po załadunku auta list przewozowy CMR – w poz. 1 i 22 wpisał jako nadawcę towaru swoją firmę.
Po dokonaniu transportu wysłaliśmy spedycji: fakturę i CMR z transportu.
Spedycja nie zapłaciła a w chwili obecnej chce zgłosić upadłość.
Czy jest możliwość dochodzenia zapłaty za transport od nadawcy towaru, który jest faktycznym właścicielem towaru a nie tylko pośrednikiem ?
@ Paul
Nie ma takiej możliwości. Faktycznym nadawcą czyli podmiotem zlecającym przewóz jest spedycja, więc z pierwotnym nadawcą przewoźnika nie łączy żaden stosunek prawny.
Welcome,
po pierwsze – dziękuję za cenne informacje, I have to say, that I use frequently and effectively with the Lord's blog 🙂
A po drugie – bardzo bym prosiła o poradę – Do I understand, że w sytuacji gdy:
– umowa przewozu międzynarodowego została zawarta między podmiotem w Austrii a przewoźnikiem głównym w Polsce, który następnie zlecił to zadanie podwykonawcy
– przewożony produkt nie został odpowiednio przez załadowcę zabezpieczony, przez co uszkodzone zostało mienie podwykonawcy
– mienie to zostało naprawione w serwisie
to rachunek za naprawę podwykonawca powinien przedstawić przewoźnikowi głównemu, jako swojemu nadawcy?
Będę ogromnie wdzięczna za pomoc, greetings
@ Magdalena
Dokładnie tak. Dla podwykonawcy nadawcą jest przewoźnik główny.
Hello,
firm, w której pracuję kupuje surowce w firmie niemieckiej. Po naszej stronie jest organizacja transportu tych surowców do naszego magazynu w Polsce. Dokonujemy tego za pośrednictwem firm spedycyjnych.
Magazyn firmy z Niemiec przy odbiorze surowców, które są niebezpieczne w transporcie żąda od kierowcy wypełnionego dokumentu transportowego ADR. Kto taki dokument powinien wypełnić ? Przecież do momentu zakończenia załadunku nikt nie jest w stanie potwierdzić ilości jaka będzie załadowana (np. mogą zostać uszkodzone opakowania podczas załadunku i ilość się zmieni lub będzie brak surowca w magazynie o czym zlecając transport nie wiedzieliśmy).
Jako zlecający przewóz w myśl przepisów my jesteśmy nadawcą. Tylko jaki mamy wpływ na końcową ilość załadowanych surowców jak i na sposób pakowania.
My w naszym magazynie dostarczamy taki dokument obierającemu surowce.
Thank you in advance for your help.
@ Edek
O tym kto powinien przygotować taki dokument decyduje umowa ze sprzedawcą. Z punktu widzenia przewoźnika to Państwu muszą mu taki dokument dostarczyć.
Sir Paul,
Do we have a deal if franco with suppliers and provide their own transportation goods, whether you need a waybill, or is it sufficient Packing lists?
Regards
@ Thomas K.
There's no need, to expose the consignment in such a situation.
Good evening!
Very interesting article, thank you!
I have a few questions, I have great hopes, You will find the time and answer. Below are two situations in my work (Poland):
1) We sell part of the company from the Polish, customer (recipient) he ordered transport (which acts as a sender) We deal with it only as a shipper – I understand. Always we keep the principle of proper loading, no matter who is the sender – Layouts masses on the axes, mats under containers and belts. Many times, the driver does not have any of the above. When not secured the goods, and something bad happens during transport, sender (our customer) responsible for this – Or maybe put the blame on us as the shipper? What if, despite the lack of protection of our customer asks us to load and release the car – despite our objections?
2) Second case is the same, only we send abroad a part (right CMR)
@ Kamil
Obowiązek zabezpieczenia ładunku na czas przewozu spoczywa na przewoźniku, a nie na załadowcy, unless otherwise stated in the contract of carriage (a prawie nigdy nie wynika), więc to przewoźnik odpowiada za taką szkodę i kupujący może do niego wystąpić z roszczeniami.
Hello. My question is if my company A (recipient) buys goods from Company B(zaladowca) and at the same time issue a forwarding order to the shipper C is also the recipient and sender? What if the shipper C shall transmit the request further to the carrier D, and this will damage the goods? And if the company can charge the costs of freight forwarder C, or if at CMR is just a rubber stamp carrier D it must be ordered directly?thank you in advance for your help.
@ Ala
In this case, A is both as a sender and the recipient. In any case, so that A will have a claim to C. If C is actually a freight forwarder and has entered into an agreement with D, A can claim against the D as the consignee. If C is a carrier, And it should refer to a claim, unless we transport gradual, And then can direct claims and the C, i do D.
Thank you very much for your answer. Already everything is clear to me will. I'm the Lord will help.
Good Day Sir Paul!
Question: Zleciłem spedycji transport towaru. Niestety towar powiększył swoją objętość podczas transportu, przewoźnik dostał mandat. Spedycja wysłała mi notę w wysokości poniesionych przez przewoźnika kosztów. W tym samym czasie skontaktował się ze mną bezpośrednio przewoźnik, gdyż spedycja nie zwróciła przewoźnikowi tych (kosztów – przewoźnik też wystawił na spedycję notę) i żąda ode mnie zwrotu kosztów. Czyją notę powinienem uznać? Przewoźnika czy spedytora? Czy jest jakaś podstawa prawna, która to reguluje?
@ Grzesiek
A czy Pan był jednocześnie załadowcą tego towaru?
Tak Panie Pawle, byłem załadowcą. International transport.
@ Grzesiek
W takim wypadku podstawą roszczeń są przepisy art. 43 paragraph. 2 pr. wire. Istnieje koncepcja, że ten przepis statuuje obowiązek załadowcy o charakterze publicznoprawnym, a tym samym jego naruszenie jest czynem niedozwolonym, za który załadowca ponosi odpowiedzialność w stosunku do każdego poszkodowanego podmiotu. W świetle tej koncepcji przewoźnik ma więc prawo domagać się odszkodowania również od załadowcy (od spedytora nadawcy oczywiście też), mimo że nie wiąże go z załadowcą żaden stosunek prawny.
Dziekuję Panu za wyczerpującą odpowiedź. Pytałem, ponieważ chcę uniknąć sytuacji, że zarówno spedycja, jak i przewoźnik, obciążą mnie za to samo i musiałbym płacić podwójnie.
Pozdrawiam i gratuluję bogatej w praktyczną wiedzę strony. 🙂
Sir Paul,
dziekuje bardzo za artykul “CMR” ktory jest bezcenny, bo niestety do dzis jest duzo zamieszania jesli chodzi o poprawne wypelninie tego papierku – each twierdzio something else 🙂
W tej chwili mam rowniez problem z wypelnieniem CMR i chcialbym poprosic o Pana ocene. W skrucie to wyglada tak:
1. Firma handlowa “A” (zarejstrowana w PL) zakupuje towar w PL w firmie “B”.
3. Company “A” zleca transport na sklad firmy logistycznej “C” na teren DE.
2. Company “A” ma umowe z firma logistyczna “C” – skladowanie towaru i dalsza wysylka na terenie DE.
Z tego co rozumiem to zleceniodawca (Item. 1) jest firma “A”. Ale czy odbiorca (Item. 2) jest rowniez firma “A”, czy firma logistyczna “C”, ktora swiadczy usluga skladowania towaru firmy “A”? Jesli odbiorca (Item. 2) jest firma “A”, to nie bedzie przeszkadzac jesli potwierdzenie otrzymania przesylki (Item. 24) podpisze firma “C”?
Regards,
Czaroslaw
@ czarosław
W tym przykładzie A występuje w podwójnej roli: nadawcy i odbiorcy. Firma C działa w tym wypadku w imieniu A, więc odbierając przesyłkę i list przewozowy działa na rzecz tego podmiotu.
Znalazłem w Pana komentarzach kilka spraw, które wydają mi się być nie do końca właściwe:
1.)
“Is the company a part of completing the waybill as the sender of C ( pole nr 1 CMR )?
Is Company A in box 22 ( Signature and stamp of the sender ) enter their own data, and shall be signed and put his own stamp? ( on what you think Item. 2 art. 47 Transport law ).
Paweł JudekPaweł Judek pisze:
30/01/2012 the 12:29
So this should be done properly. In addition, well data from A to enter the place of loading, żeby nie było wątpliwości skąd jej podpis w polu podpisu nadawcy.”
Jeśli chodzi o podpis i pieczęć nadawcy w sytuacji, gdy nie jest nim załadowca to chyba w sensie ścisłym nie powinno być tam podpisu załadowcy (nie chcemy przecież mylić nadawcy z załadowcą), a przynajmniej nie można twierdzić, że jest on obligatoryjny…? Podpis i pieczęć nadawcy to pojęcie ścisłe.. a w sytuacji gdy załadowca nie jest nadawcą jego podpisanie się w polu nr 22 byłoby chyba nie do końca formalnie właściwe ???? nawet jeśli z przyczyn praktycznych rzeczywisty nadawca nie może się podpisać.
2.)
“I confess, this is my personal view, and the subject was not discussed so far, both in case law and literature. But I believe, that such an approach is justified both by the existing practice (shipper, in practice, always signed waybills and check, whether the data contained therein are correct) as well as being an obligation of good. Where the issue is the product into the hands of the carrier, the seller should have a Proof of transmission charge and a description of its condition, So should this bill to unsubscribe. I feel for any irregularities in the filling of the letter przyjmowałbym full responsibility seller. While certainly problematic to expect from the seller, that correctly typed into the address space of the letter of delivery, if you have not been informed about it. Without a doubt, therefore, in the interest of the buyer is, that the relevant provisions included in the sales contract. Practice shows, however,, że prawie nigdy się tego nie robi.”
Przecież jeśli załadowca jest sprzedawcą (i równocześnie nie jest nadawcą) to jako dowód wydania służą np. dokumenty WZ, podpisane FV itp. Po wtóre, jeśli załadowca sprzedaje kupującemu (będącemu jednocześnie nadawcą) na bazie EXW wg INCIOTERMS to nie jest on w żaden sposób odpowiedzialny i zaangażowany w transport towaru – jego obowiązkiem jest wydanie towaru (ewentualnie jeszcze załadunek, jeśli na bazie FCA), więc nie do końca zrozumiałe jest dla mnie twierdzenie, że ma on jakieś obowiązki co do wypisywania listu przewozowego, co więcej chyba w takiej sytuacji nigdzie na liście nie powinien się podpisywać – nie jest przecież nadawcą, or recipient…. a nawet w polu nr 4 jest mowa jedynie o ADRESIE ZAŁADUNKU, a nie o podpisie czy pieczątce załadowcy.
Sprzedawcę na bazie EXW / FCA będącego załadowcą nie interesuje przecież transport.
Thank you very much in advance for your reply and I cordially greet 🙂
Sir Paul!
Mam zapytanie o innym charakterze.
Mianowicie czy w przypadku szkody w transporcie mogę zostać obciążony bezpośrednio przez odbiorcę towaru czy jeżeli ładunek został wzięty przez spedycje to odbiorca towaru nie jest do tego uprawniony.
Regards
Jakub
Hello, to jak to teraz jest z CMR ?
Jeżeli firma A kupiła towar od firmy B i zleca spedycji transport a spedycja zleca go mi przewoźnikowi. To kto jest nadawcą a kto odbiorcą??? Rozumiem że załadowcą jest firma B a miejscem odbioru jest firma A . A kto nadawcą firma A czy spedycja??? I czy załadowca czyli firma B może bo w sumie musi podpisywać się pod nadawcą??? Czy nie lepiej aby załadowca był wpisany jako nadawca???
Hello, mam pytanie odnośnie punktów (2) i (3) na CMR – odbiorca i miejsce przeznaczenia. Czy zgodne z prawem będzie wpisanie jako odbiorcy firmę X widniejącą na fakturze, wysyłka do firmy Z – z tym, że X ma siedzibę w innym kraju UE niż Z.
For example:
wysyłka następuje z Polski – odbiorcą / fakturowaną firmą jest X z Niemiec a dostawa produktu do Z na Węgry.
Czy nie będzie problemu z tym, że wysyłka i faktura są na dwa różne kraje?
Mam pytanie do sytuacji opisanej w poście poście powyżej, tj.:
“W tej chwili mam rowniez problem z wypelnieniem CMR i chcialbym poprosic o Pana ocene. W skrucie to wyglada tak:
1. Firma handlowa „A” (zarejstrowana w PL) zakupuje towar w PL w firmie „B”.
3. Firma „A” zleca transport na sklad firmy logistycznej „C” na teren DE.
2. Firma „A” ma umowe z firma logistyczna „C” – skladowanie towaru i dalsza wysylka na terenie DE.
Z tego co rozumiem to zleceniodawca (Item. 1) jest firma „A”. Ale czy odbiorca (Item. 2) jest rowniez firma „A”, czy firma logistyczna „C”, ktora swiadczy usluga skladowania towaru firmy „A”? Jesli odbiorca (Item. 2) jest firma „A”, to nie bedzie przeszkadzac jesli potwierdzenie otrzymania przesylki (Item. 24) podpisze firma „C”?”
Odpowiedział Pan, że A występuję w roli nadawcy i odbiorcy… (jako że C składując towar działa na rzecz A)… mam podobną sytuację, jednak jako odbiorcę wpisuję C – gdyż to C fizycznie odbiera towar i podpisuje CMR – w moim przekonaniu CMR dokumentuje fizyczną trasę jako przebywa towar, a nie jest dokumentem mającym odzwierciedlać układ handlowy… czy jest to błąd, czy też jest to akceptowalna praktyka?
W uwagach na CMR piszę jednak że podmiot C (czyli fizyczny odbiorca towaru) świadczy na rzecz A usługę magazynowania towaru (… stąd też jest odbiorcą)
proszę o komentarz
Miałbym jeszcze jedno pytanie:
Zgodnie z konwencją CMR co do zasady list przewozowy wypisuje nadawca … z pewnych względów ja jako nadawca (nie będąc załadowcą) wysyłam na miejsce załadunku list przewozowy wypełniony tylko w części – zlecając wypełnienie brakujących informacji (np. miejsce rozładunku i odbiorcę) carrier, a w praktyce kierowcy podejmującemu towar… czy jest to duży błąd czy jest to do zaakceptowania?
Z góry dziękuję za informację
Dzien dobry.Nasz kierowca dostał zlecenie od spedycji na załadunek w którym nie był okreslony rodzaj ładunku, po przybyciu na miejsce załadunku okazało sie ze sa to elementy betonowe wystajace poza obrys naczepy na ok 1 m z punktem podparcia z przodu i z tyłu naczepy, po załadunku i zabezpieczeniu pasami i łancuchami ruszył w trase, po przejechaniu ok 100 km stwierdził iz na skutek zbyt duzych obciazen ( waga ładunku ok 22 ton)naczepa niebezpiecznie sie przegieła i został uszkodzony dach oraz rama, kto odpowiada za uszkodzona naczepe, kierowca nie był w stanie ocenic specyfiki ładunku w momecie załadunku, i jego zabezpieczenia na czas transpotru, prosze o informacje , thank you
@ Andrew Micał
1) I do not agree with that. This signature is proof, that a representative of the sender knows the contents of the bill of lading and accepts it. No signature could later lead to digressions, czy nadawca w ogóle list przewozowy widział np. gdy przewoźnik poczynił w nim jakieś zastrzeżenia. I podpis nadawcy zawsze jest podpisem upoważnionym do reprezentowania w danych relacjach nadawcy. Przecież jakby to był jednocześnie nadawca, to też nie podpisałby się prezes jako upoważniony do reprezentacji, ale pracownik. Z przepisów zaś wynika, że osoba oddająca przesyłkę do przewozu jest uprawniona do reprezentowania nadawcy w zakresie tego przewozu.
2) I agree, że w przypadku EXW transport w ogóle nie interesuje sprzedawcy. Przy FCA jest jednak inaczej, gdyż załadunek jest po stronie sprzedawcy. W każdym jednak wypadku nic nie ma o wypełnieniu listów przewozowych. Dlatego postuluję, żeby takie zapisy znajdowały się w stosownych umowach.
@ James
To zależy od wielu czynników. Jeśli to był nie spedytor, lecz przewoźnik umowny, to generalnie roszczenia powinny być kierowane do niego. Jeśli jednak był to spedytor, a Pan był pierwszym przewoźnikiem, to oczywiście roszczenia są wobec Pana. Dodatkowo jeśli w sprawie zaistniał przewóz sukcesywny (in international transport), to roszczenia mogą być do Pana kierowane jako ostatniego przewoźnika niezależnie od tego, czy w tym wypadku był to spedytor czy przewoźnik. Istnieje też – choć nierozpowszechniony – pogląd, że odbiorca może kierować roszczenia do wszystkich przewoźników zaangażowanych w transport. W sądach go raczej jednak nie spotkałem.
@ Auto
Jeśli zawarto umowę spedycji, to firma A jest zleceniodawcą, a spedytor zawierający umowę przewozu jest nadawcą. Załadowcą jest firma B, a odbiorcą firma A. Jeśli jednak to nie była umowa spedycji, tylko przewozu, to firma A jest nadawcą, remover – pierwszym przewoźnikiem, Pan drugim, a firma B załadowcą.
@ Barbara
Odbiorca to podmiot uprawniony do otrzymania przesyłki. Miejsce to fizyczny adres, gdzie przesyłka ma być dostarczona. Te miejsca mogą być w różnych krajach, więc w Pani przykładzie jest wszystko zgodnie z prawem.
ok, to zadam pytanie w inny sposób: czy w przypadku jeśli nadawca nie jest załadowcą, a towar idzie bezpośrednio do odbiorcy (klienta nadawcy), to czy brak podpisu na liscie przewozowym załadowcy jest problemem z punktu widzenia jego poprawności…? Podpisywanie listu przez załadowcę (dostawcę nadawcy) jest problematyczne z punktu widzenia zachowania tajemnicy handlowej nadawcy względem odbiorcy.. a i nie jest chyba w sensie scisłym wymagane na liscie (w sensie ścisłym nie ma pola podpis załadowcy) – a podpis nadawcy jest…
???
… (uzupełnienie poprzedniego posta) … the more, że załadowcę sprzedającego na bazie EXW przeważnie nie interesują moje (ie. sender) listy przewozowe… dla własnych celów ich najczęściej nie potrzebują…
inaczej zadając pytanie: czy w opisanym przypadku akceptowalne (dopuszczalne) is, że załadowca nie podpisuje listu przewozowego, a podpisuje go jedynie nadawca (i odbiorca przy odbiorze).. (mówimy o sytuacjach jak zostało napisane wcześniej , gdy załadowca sprzedaje towar nadawcy na bazie EXW lub FCA i oprócz wydania / względnie jeszcze załadunku na wysłany przez nadawcę środek transportu wg przepisów nie ma on obowiązków względem dokumentacji transportowej)..
@ Andrew Micał
It is, że jeśli przewoźnik uzupełnia list przewozowy, w tym zakresie działa w imieniu i na rzecz nadawcy. Za całość treści listu przewozowego odpowiada więc nadawca.
@ Rutkowski Edward
Nadawca odpowiada za uszkodzenia w mieniu przewoźnika wynikające z przewożonego mienia. Kluczowe jest, czy kierowca nie mógł stwierdzić zagrożenia w tym wypadku. Wówczas mielibyśmy przyczynienie się do powstania szkody.
Proszę w takim razie napisać jaka jest różnica między przewozem a umową spedycyjną??? Wogóle kiedy jest spedycja???? Jak ja jako przewoźnik dostaje zlecenie transportu np. warszawa- gdańsk i daje jakiemuś innemu przewoźnikowi to samo zlecenie tylko że ode mnie i z mniejszą stawką to nie podlegam pod spedycje?? Jak mam rozróżnić do cmr czy ktoś mi daje przewóz czy umowe spedycyjną???
@ auto
I tu jest właśnie problem, żeby odróżnić spedytora od przewoźnika. Różnica wcale nie polega na tym, czy dany podmiot wykonuje przewóz osobiście, czy zleca podwykonawcy. Kluczowa jest treść umowy, którą zawiera ze swoim zleceniodawcą. Jeśli w umowie napisano, że przedmiotem umowy jest przewiezienie przesyłki pomiędzy określonymi miejscami, jest to umowa przewozu. Jeśli natomiast wskazano, że zleceniobiorca ma zorganizować transport poprzez znalezienie przewoźnika i zawarcie z nim stosownej umowy, wówczas jest to umowa spedycji.
Welcome,
mam następujące pytanie: z uwagi na to, że bardzo często, jak sam Pan wskazał przy przewozie występuje zarówno przewoźnik umowny jak i faktyczny, jak w takiej relacji wygląda formułowanie zastrzeżeń o których mowa w art. 30 paragraph 3 CMR? uprawnionym do zgłoszenia zastrzeżenia jest bowiem odbiorca lub nadawca, czy zatem przewoźnik umowny powinien tego rodzaju zastrzeżenie również zgłosić przewoźnikowi faktycznemu? kiedy przewoźnik umowny może dochodzić odszkodowania od przewoźnika faktycznego? Będę wdzięczna za pomoc w rozwiązaniu tego problemu, bo nie ukrywam, że w komentarzach, do których udało mi się dotrzeć brakuje odpowiedzi na powyższe pytania. I would add, że nie chodzi tu o przewóz sukcesywny, a posłużenie się innym przewoźnikiem do wykonania zlecenia.
@ Ika
Po pierwsze posłużenie się innym przewoźnikiem do wykonania zlecenia nie wyklucza zaistnienia przewozu sukcesywnego – bardzo często właśnie w takich sytuacjach ten przewóz występuje. Po drugie przepisy rzeczywiście nie precyzują kwestii tego, kto ma obowiązek złożyć takie zastrzeżenia. Personally, I am of the opinion, że ten wymóg dotyczy relacji pomiędzy uprawnionym a przewoźnikiem, nie ma natomiast zastosowania do roszczeń regresowych pomiędzy przewoźnikami. W wielu wypadkach byłoby bowiem niemożliwe dotrzymanie tego terminu. Przykładowo poszkodowany składa pisemne zastrzeżenia w terminie 21 dni i zostają one w tym czasie dostarczone przewoźnikowi, ale ten nie ma już praktycznie możliwości dostarczenia w tym samym terminie zastrzeżeń swojemu podwykonawcy.
Good morning,
Kim wg Pana jest podmiot, który poprzez należącą do niego stronę internetową umożliwia osobie fizycznej zlecenie przewozu międzynarodowego, który ma zostać faktycznie wykonany przez wybranego przez tę osobę fizyczną, jednego ze współpracujących z tym podmiotem, przewoźników typu: dpd czy fedex itp. Ten podmiot pobiera od osoby fizycznej wynagrodzenie za przewóz i wystawia osobie fizycznej fakturę za “transport wewnątrzunijny”, a następnie rozlicza się, wg swoich reguł, z przewoźnikiem faktycznym. Regulaminy takich firm są tak formułowane, że stwierdzają, że jest to tylko platforma platformy kontaktu osoby fizycznej z przewoźnikami (ale czy faktycznie?), bo jednocześnie wskazują też, że całą procedurę reklamacyjną “biorą na siebie”. Czy jest, względem osoby fizycznej zlecającej taki transport, carrier? Przewoźnik umowny? Podmiot ten w KRSie posiada wpis o działalności sklasyfikowanej jako 52.21.Z Kto jest biernie legitymowanym wobec odbiorcy za szkodę w towarze?
Regards!
@ jan
Moim zdaniem w sytuacji, gdy faktura jest wystawiona przez platformę i dany podmiot bierze na siebie kwestię reklamacji, jest po prostu przewoźnikiem umownym i żadne regulaminy wyłączające jego odpowiedzialność nie będą miały tu zastosowania.
Hello,
I'm a carrier, który na zlecenie spedycji przewoził towar i uległ wypadkowi w którym towar ten został uszkodzony. Zgłosiłem ten fakt do ubezpieczyciela z OCP i teraz zaczynają się schody. Ubezpieczyciel oddał sprawę do zewnętrznej firmy która miała określić stan ładunku i go wycenić. Teraz ta firma dzwoni do mnie i informuje o sprzedaży awaryjnej oznajmiając iż ja mam wystawić fakturę tejże sprzedaży. Czy jest to faktycznie mój obowiązek czy ubezpieczyciela lub firmy spedycyjnej?
Dziekuję za wszystkie komentarze, ale jakoś nie zrozumiałem sytuacji, kiedy to polski odbiorca towaru który jest załadowany np we Włoszech przez producenta tego towaru, który podał do informacji polskiemu odbiorcy, zatem też i firmie transportowej wagę przesyłki wyższą o 100kg, za którą to nadwagę przewoznik zapłacił mandat. Wobec tego kto odpowiada finansowo za taki mandat?
@ Lth
Generalnie mandat zapłaci przewoźnik, a ma potem roszczenie o naprawienie szkody do swojego zleceniodawcy.
Very interesting entry. Insider tips 🙂
Hello,
Could you please clarify how to fill up the CMR in the following situation?
Company A is a German company and a seller of the goods.
Company B is a Russian company and a buyer of the goods.
The terms of delivery is FCA the packaging company of company A. the Loading point is in the territory of Germany.
The company B hires a forwarder. the Final destination is Russia.
In this case who will be the sender and who will be stated in CMR as a sender?
Sir Paul,
I am not hiding that the information presented above is at least very useful 🙂
However, due to the doubts that have arisen, I am asking for help in the facts presented below:
1. on the basis of a transport order, company A commissions transport to company B (that is my company – being a carrier)
2. Company A in CMR has not been indicated anywhere
3. Company C – loading the goods incorrectly filled in CMR point 1 i 2
4. in CMR in point 1 Company C is entered, which loaded the goods and filled in the CMR incorrectly
5. in CMR in point 22 “signature and stamp of the sender” another company is entered, D
—-CMR was completed by the company C.——–
6. the car is stopped and a fine is imposed 2000 euro for incorrect filling in CMR point. 1 i 2
7. To whom the company B- that is, I, acting as a carrier, should apply for a refund of the fine
8. should I send a request for compensation ? what form should the letter sent to the relevant entity take ?