The specificity of transport services is, that very often their performance is done by subcontractors. For this reason, one in the carriage of the damage is often the cause of several lawsuits between the victim and the main carrier, between the main carrier and the subcontractors, etc.. In such cases, begins to play a crucial issue, When carrier may begin to pursue the claim from its subcontractor.
Lawsuit after repairing the damage is not in doubt
In practice, the transport, if the claim is not obvious, major carrier usually gets into a dispute with a victim reaching claims for damages in transport. At this stage of the proceedings leading carrier usually does not occur with their claims against the subcontractor, focusing on defense against the charges of the victim. It also happens sometimes, that under the protection of his interests leading carrier przypozywa subcontractor to proceed with the action the victim. In such cases, after losing the main carrier of the process of payment of compensation to victims and is against the subcontractor. This design is not in doubt, because carrier is entitled to claim damages from the subcontractor, he suffered as a result of faulty performance by a subcontractor.
Subcontractor a successive carrier
Sometimes it happens, however,, the main carrier, without questioning the validity of claims against each other, for various reasons do not want or can not repair the damage before obtaining compensation from its subcontractors. There is then a question, or without the victim's satisfaction leading carrier is entitled to claim damages by the subcontractor.
To answer that question in the first place should be considered between successive sub-contractor and the carrier. About the first-mentioned art. 5 pr. wire., Acting, that the carrier may delegate performance of the transport to other carriers on the entire space of the carriage or part thereof subject to the responsibility for all activities of subcontractors. The second appears in Article. 6 the same law, providing, that the carriage can be performed by several carriers of the same or different modes of transport under a single contract of carriage, and a single transport document, the carrier's liability is joint and several. In the case of the relationship between carriers sukcesywnymi art. 6 paragraph. 3 pr. wire. leaves no doubt, indicating, that the carrier, who has paid compensation, have recourse to the carrier bears the responsibility for the circumstances, of which the damage resulted. This means that, that successive carrier can not claim against the other carrier before successive yourself not satisfied the claims of the injured person.
In art. 5 pr. wire. there is no equivalent art. 6 paragraph. 3 pr. wire., which must lead to the conclusion, that in relation to this particular sub regulation is not applicable and should be based on general principles. But what are these principles?
When the damage occurs
The Civil Code does not explicitly, what is meant by harm. Art. 361 § 2 k.c. limited to statements, that the loss includes losses, that the victim suffered, and benefits, which could achieve, if he does not damage done to. The legislation does not indicate so, or for damage should be considered only the situation, when one's property is decreased (bo np. paid compensation to another person), or the injury occurs at the time, When one is obligated to pay (or increase its liabilities are). The doctrine and case law far outweighs the second of these views. It is generally accepted, that the deadline for settlement of claims of a third party has no effect on the injury, This arises because the mere fact of a liability to settle these claims.
Given the above rule, in the absence of different concepts in transport law claims between the subcontractor and the main carrier, It must be concluded, that it is possible to bring an action against the subcontractor before leading carrier will satisfy claims of the injured person.
The creation of a prescription claims
When talking about the creation of the claims in the relationship between carriers, can not ignore the specifically regulated by the limitation of the claims. According to art. 78 pr. wire. vested claim against the carrier to other carriers (both contracted and successive carriers) shall expire after 6 months of, the carrier to repair the damage, or from the, in which the action were brought against him.
This adjustment has no negative effects of legal claims against the subcontractors of parent. As already indicated above, they can be pursued before there is a settlement of claims by the victim of parent. However, there is a practical problem. If we question the leading carrier claims against each other, generally do not occur simultaneously over its subcontractors, because in this way he would jeopardize his position in the, in which the defendant is. Taking into account the realities of the Polish judicial proceedings, not be counted on to, that within 6 months from the filing of an action comes to a final conclusion of the proceedings. This means that, that the claim against the subcontractor may be barred before the carrier will be a major, claim that there is a.
In the situation described above can always take the risk carrier, bring a lawsuit and request for a stay of proceedings pending the outcome of, which acts as the defendant. The disadvantage is definitely a successive carrier, against whom the claim is sought. On bowiem until the compensation is not entitled to take action against a carrier other successive. In this case, the claim may be barred even before the rise.
The only solution to these problems is to request a summoned to compromise. The cost of this proposal is relatively small, It interrupts the limitation period, and its preparation does not take too much time, it is not necessary to invoke the evidence and its submission.
This article shows, that the carrier may claim compensation before physically pay compensation to the person entitled. I have a different opinion.
If that were so it would be possible situation in which such. recipient submitted a complaint to the carrier … This quick claim to the subcontractor (such a high amount. 200 k. zł) – subcontractor has paid (usually pays the principal carrier of the customer because there is NO contract) a ten … does not pay … . It may not pay for various reasons (not because I do not, because he has the better lawyer and found a formal misconduct or other circumstances, because it is hard to …itd.).
I, that if the primary carrier has paid compensation not physically – subcontractor has no reason to pay anything.
I agree with Mr Andrzej, that there is significant risk associated with the movement of money. A good leading the case may be situations when the leading carrier will receive compensation from the subcontractor at the same time effectively rejecting the claim holder (observing what is the knowledge of the law in TSL I, that the absolute recognition of parent by having the right to compensation may result in such kazusami).
On the other hand, remember, that is not always legitimate sender (not relevant or understood as the beneficiary of a subcontractor or as an entity listed in the bill of lading, who load and being “the first principal”). In most cases, an entity that is the de facto recipient, in which the passage of the right to dispose of the shipment generally go through the entitlement to compensation.
In my opinion the lack of regulation of the contracting carrier recourse to the subcontractor without prejudice to the application of general principles. Both of the CMR Convention and transport law is clear, that is either authorized sender or recipient (and their permission is not generally dependent on ownership rights or other, in fact owed to them by consignment). I lean more toward the position, that since the primary carrier paid to the beneficiary is subrogated to the rights of the creditor in accordance with Article. 518 kc. And if you have not paid it is still an eligible recipient.
Panie Kamilu, welcome to the blog next transport law expert Since 🙂, I see, you share the views of Mr. Andrew, I will address the position of men in one commentary.
There is in my opinion, ultimately, the danger of victimization subcontractor. If it turns out, that the leading carrier will not pay compensation to the person entitled, we have a classic case of undue benefits – there was a legal basis for the provision of, but in the absence of damages by the carrier is dropped off the main base. There is therefore no possibility of unjust enrichment of parent, if the subcontractor will look after their interests.
Also I do not agree with the statement, that the problem in this case can be a matter of, who is entitled to claim from the subcontractor. I agree, specified that pass in the transport law is, in principle, and that formal law determines, who has the right to claim. A little different in the case of the CMR, which does not indicate, who is entitled to claim, and although the Supreme Court determined the application in this field of transport law, in the cases examined in the courts of other countries this issue is not a. But I believe, that these rules apply only to claims against the carrier main, a subcontractor. Such a position is well-established doctrine. On the basis of the CMR Convention confirms this, in turn, a number of decisions which are clearly, claims against contractors that have only an, which included contracts with them.
I can not agree, that the recipient has the right to sue the subcontractor for damages in transport. By adopting the package recipient joins Although the contract of carriage, but only on the covering agreement between the carrier and shipper main. Do not accede to the agreements concluded between successive sub-contractors. If it were otherwise, be adopted, the customer is charged pursuant to Article. 51 pr. wire. for the payment of salaries of all carriers, What is an idea difficult to accept. Moreover, if we accept your idea, recipient has the right to address the claims against both the subcontractor and the carrier main, okazywałoby the, that in principle, subcontracting is no different from the transport of gradual – recipient seeking recourse of all carriers participating in transportation. However, Article. 6 pr. wire. is structured quite differently from Article. 5 and clearly speaks of joint and several liability. W art. 5 the only question about the carrier's liability for the obligations of principal contractors, which emphasizes the responsibility of parent, and not a subcontractor to the person entitled. It is therefore difficult to accept the application in this case art. 518 kc, because it does not repay the principal carrier of the person entitled to someone else's debt, but his own.
If, however, go on general principles, able to sue the subcontractor is a simple consequence of the increased understanding of the damage liability of parent. This understanding is supported by many commentators, the damage to the System of Private Law at the head and a large number of decisions. I do not know, and in this respect are different views Gentlemen.
But our dispute Mr. Kamil probably soon be settled by the District Court in Poznań on przemrożonych cheese 🙂
Sir Paul, I have been following with interest your publications, and with the positions outlined in them, in most cases are fully agree. So pleased to see when, that there was room for discussion 🙂
In terms of victimization subcontractor I insisted on finding, that it is perfectly possible. I agree with you completely, that in this situation we are dealing with a classic case of undue benefits. It is important, however,, that in extreme cases can lead to a situation where no one noticing. With claims of up dozens or hundreds of thousands of PLN any reasonable thinking / acting entity will look after the fate of the matter. The situation is different with minor injuries, for amounts to several thousand. Following payment, no one is not interested in whether the injury actually was paid to the victim. I'm afraid, the recognition of absolute rights of parent to claim will give rise to "businesses" which will focus only on the effective collection of actual damages from the carriers and defense against the claims of victims. This position was confirmed by the experience of applying for some of the "forwarders" contractual penalties, where brokers often earn minimum (or nothing) for further podzleceniu, because real wages are contractual penalties (skillful construction of transport orders + low legal awareness = very good source of income).
Recognition in each case, that the carrier is the main broadcaster is the most proven in the case law and doctrine, This does not mean that it is always right. Examples are crooks "wczepiający" in the transport chain, who subcontract transportation carriers operating in real terms, and then change the place of delivery and the goods gone. The Supreme Court indicated, to recognize that person as the sender is not necessary to make it the owner or holder of spontaneous delivery. It is sufficient, that it has in relation to the consignment specified title. In my opinion the mere adoption order is the main carrier does not provide sufficient legal title to the shipment. As an indication of a person as the sender in the consignment does not recognize him as the sender, one might be tempted to declare the opposite, that the same conclusion by a person not a contract of carriage that it is the sender, if any other circumstances, that the sender is another entity (having legal title to the consignment).
Regarding the well-established doctrine and case law - you can always change it (or at least try) 🙂
In terms of powers of the recipient seems to me, that the current model of transport services (often 3-4 intermediaries) It is actually the surest party to the contract of carriage. Art. 17 CMR i art. 65 traffic rights are when the carrier is liable. In my view it is irrelevant whether this is the first carrier, or fourth, it is important to the law by meeting the requirements (reception of the consignment) I enter in the ratio of the contract of carriage with a pre-specified recipient. The question of recognizing who is the recipient can accept, that the entity will basically that received the shipment. I personally met with the ruling (Italian) where the court stated, that if the recipient has been subject to whom the contract is concluded between the carrier and the subcontractors, the recipient has the right to sue the subcontractor.
Failure to recognize the accession of the recipient to an agreement with the subcontractor, results in de facto, that the agreement of the person designated as the recipient does not have any rights and obligations specified in the CMR and transport law. Basically, the contract of carriage we are dealing with three parties, and one of them is the recipient. Less important is whether he is receiving the shipment from the carrier main, or from any of the following sub, if followed by the adoption and the legal effect is defined in law as the right to seek.
I also agree, that the payment of compensation by the main carrier is repaying its debt. However, the assumption, that the ultimate responsibility for damages is the actual carrier, application of Article. 518 k.c. can be justified. In accordance with Article. 5 transport law the carrier is liable for the acts of contractors "as for his own". Since the actual carrier can be considered as a debtor in the recipient, payment of principal by the carrier can be understood as someone else's debt payment, which is responsible for.
As you rightly said their discussion, a and verify that all courts, It falls so wait for the outcome of 🙂
Panie Kamilu, I also track your publications, and also generally agree, though not with all, but in the TSL Business of polemics much more difficult, So I'm glad, that there is room for substantive discussions 🙂
As for the possibility of victimization subcontractor – Of course it exists, therefore reserved, that the carrier must ensure that their interests. If you do not do this, difficult to have a claim to the legislature to regulate the legal status of such. The knowledge of traffic rights among bus companies I have written repeatedly. Amazes me most, however, accept your small print orders without reading them. Then comes the surprise, że np. 48-hour parking is not paid, as for the cold and they need to maintain a constant temperature can eat the whole carriage.
As for the notion of the sender – in my opinion and I think all the commentators of traffic rights beyond prof. Stec (which, moreover, is inconsistent, because in his monograph considers a system of private law and in the second) sender is the person who arranges the carriage of the carrier. This is the same person as the dispatcher in the Civil Code – simply a matter of law movement is called the sender. Thus, in the relationship with the subcontractor sender will always be a leading carrier regardless of its powers to the consignment. So that the sender will therefore also cheat the chain wczepiający. His actions are criminal, but this fact does not, that his contract with the substitute carrier is important. The concept of the sender, moreover, recently wrote a research article – to be published, I'll know for sure 🙂
What to join the substitute carrier to contract with the recipient – Here we return to the institution of successive carriers. Only they join the main contract of carriage. A foreign court judgments are indeed different in this respect (English courts, eg. generally treat each subcontractor as successive carrier).
Also I do not agree with the statement, that the lack of action against the subcontractor by the receiver makes, he is deprived of any rights and obligations. May exercise the right under the main contract of carriage – otherwise it would lead to a situation, that the recipient has the right to exercise their rights in relation to any contract of carriage between carriers. Since each would in an autonomous role, should also be considered, that each could maintain different – one to change the contract of carriage, and in another not, which would be absurd for obvious reasons. It could also happen from any separate compensation carrier, since they would be jointly and severally liable. There is nothing różniłoby the situation of successive carrier.
Co do art. 518 k.c. – indeed its use depends on whether the subcontractor is responsible to the customer. Pan uważa, that is, I think, not – hence the differences in views about the, if this recipe fits the situation described 🙂 If I hit the ruling, that this dispute resolved, certainly I write about it 🙂
WELCOME, I have a problem and do not know how to please help roawiazac, I am a person who transport company. przyjolem order to transport things from Polish to England. OFFER on the stock exchange next to the carrier transport ktort He began in August orders carriage . I wrote out a transport order for the carrier-content payment on the spot in England pays cash on the unloading of the English company, merchandise was damaged during transport – get wet furniture- . the unloading not done the damage and business protocol in English money, the carrier has not paid the amounts they said the damaged parts of the Polish and presents fv to buy things that happened to the cost of purchased items is similar to the amount of freight, Now the carrier is found that when I told him commissioned to a company in England does not want him to withdraw the freight is I have to pay him for this course and did not care about it, then referred the matter to the syndicate, the recovery of debts from me instead of from a company in England Please advice if this is a look that I have cashed out to the carrier for transport, which he himself was destroyed because he did not understand the proceedings as possible .
A little too complicated problem, and not enough detail, To reply to comments. Please contact us by email.
WELCOME MY MAIL, sylwekkiec@o2.pl.
Hello Sir Paul,
In connection with what you wrote, you can deduct the money the carrier only if you yourself have paid debit note? What if such. we have a chain of subcontractors , carrier( X) accepted the request and passed it on to the implementation of the subcontractor(And). The load is well founded and is 100 000 euro(for example,).
Carrier X receives debit note and has no such money to pay the note. In such a situation the carrier X may deduct the amount of receivables for carrier Y, pay the note before which he must pay the customer? Carrier X knew the value of the load before he received the note and issued a burden on his sub-contractor before he received the load. Can it necessary to deduct your note before it becomes due and payable to the customer's load?
Personally, I think, that the damage incurred at the time when they become due and payable claims against the carrier X. Thus, when only the carrier X will receive a debit note, has the right to claim damages from the subcontractor Y. Therefore, if the claim does not become a client due to an investigation would be cautious of claims from subcontractors. Of course you can inform him and ask for their views, but directing the case to court would be too risky in my opinion.
Thanks for your reply.
Please very 🙂
I have to turn a little bit different situation. I represent a shipping company. Our client gave us the organization of a national transport. We transport our subcontractors, we commissioned. In the course of transportation proved to be, the snow broke into the interior of the trailer and merchandise oprószył, which was sensitive to moisture. Rozładowca fearing, that the product is damaged goods refused, result of which the goods have to go back to the place of loading. A special committee of lab, warehouse and transportation specialists ds, ruled, that the product is not damaged (which is documented). Customer does not want to pay for the service.. Despite my requests for documentation of losses, so far (more than 3 months after unloading the car) they did not, only found, that we will not pay the invoice (for transport in both directions). Our carrier is expecting us to pay for transportation both ways, and so he paid out but not receiving money from the Customer, who claims, that it was due to gross negligence of the carrier came to this situation and that if we put the case to court we will charge additionally alleged costs, he suffered. My question is, whether he is entitled to after so much time and whether they should pay for this service?
I – However, without knowing the details of the case – that in this situation, there are grounds to demand payment for transport across the section. The only question concerns the, or return transport should be priced according to the same rate as the original. It is not the end of the fixed, whether payment for the extended route of transport should include the gain carrier.
As it turned out, rozładowca that refuses to accept the goods, probably because it is corrupt, principal stated, that the more we pay, We drove us to this stuff at the place of loading, because if it will auto, This will probably be more expensive, beyond the reach of the costs of handling vehicle. Therefore, expecting to, that the product is defective and did not get transportable, We preferred to minimize these costs. But when it became, that the product is not damaged, and the client does not want to cover transport costs, both in single as well as the other side, Our contractor received the same rate as the loading of the goods taken home – we followed his example.
You can try to resist this argument – much depends on how the defense of the client. For starters I suggest a referral request for payment. In many cases such a call is sometimes effective.
Unfortunately, the call did not work, the client still believes, The above situation that resulted from gross negligence of the carrier and you should not pay him for the service.. Today, patron, koszystamy whose services had to file a claim on our behalf and see what the court decides..
I wish, then, good luck and please let us know, what was the outcome of the case 🙂
Thank 🙂 and by the way, I still have a question somewhat different nature. We still have a damage – this time the item was indeed damaged. The damage, our client had written directly to our carrier. The carrier, however, said, that damage is not the result of transport, but bad security product (what the driver is obviously not recorded on the consignment, I did not even wrote). I note, wozimy that such goods several times a week and each time it is as loaded and secured as, and for the securing of loads on the vehicle corresponds to the carrier. The Principal issued the debit note to us. We have issued the same note subcontractor, which of course is not adopted and issued us an invoice for a transport service. Does your client can claim compensation from us, if the damage report sent directly to our contractors, and we did not get from him a written complaint, just the same note? Is acting as a forwarding only responsible for the selection of subcontractors, whether we can also be responsible for damage not being a carrier?
First, never believe a word, that someone is in the data forwarder relations 🙂 To assess this order must-see Forwarding, and these, unfortunately, is usually just order the carriage, So remover is really in the role of contracting. Then assume full responsibility for transport and not just for the selection of the actual carrier. I did not see your order, So I do not know, liability regime which will come into play in your case 🙂
As for the case described is indeed a formal complaint should be directly to your, and not to the subcontractor (if you were contracting carrier). But I do not know, whether it is a national transport (where the claim is mandatory) or international (where such is not already). The courts, moreover, usually fairly liberal approach to the content of the complaint and did not adhere to the provisions of the regulation setting out what the complaint should contain. So it is highly likely, as the claim that the court order for payment potraktowałby with a debit note. The merits of the claims I am not able to firmly denounce, because I do not know details of the case. One thing is certain – in any case, you bear the same responsibility as a subcontractor, so either one will not cover damage, or you will be able to charge a subcontractor. The problem can only claim the costs of the victim, but probably I write about it in one of the next entries 🙂
Pana witam, admit, that the more I begin to vain to the CMR, the more problems with it….looking for some of the issues on the internet I came across a very interesting blog of the Lord and may the Lord has a view on this topic:
– Do you think that the victim can sue all the international traffic in a string (of contracting and subcontracting) the principle in solidum?
The sentence I have, but eagerly look forward to going first with the concept of the Lord 🙂 On what basis were these claims against the individual participants of the transport process?
hello,
Assuming, we do not have to deal with successive transport, (abstahując perennial problem of what it is that successive transport, for which the Convention clearly states if someone can sue in this situation), on the basis of Article. 3 Convention sued for sure the first as the contracting carrier. Assuming, he podzlecił another entity that transport, and he, in turn, this transport was stolen, because, for example, leave the car without any security in the parking lot unattended for several hours, in this situation, I think the actual carrier to liability based on tort liability would (415 k.c.). In a word, the first corresponds to, he is responsible for its subcontractors, while the second corresponds to, if the blame can be ascribed. Then it seems to me, that person would be entitled to refer their claims directly to the two entities and their responsibility kształtowałyby just on principle in solidum. From the plaintiff's – the risk of suing the two entities in the event of a claim for damages for a big money relatively small , because only a question of representation costs, because the court fee the same.
If the chain is longer and is probably rather not have speech, to sue all (also those, whose role was confined only to send the job to the next carrier) , but met with such a conception, that then each of them individually responsible pursuant to Article. 3 and therefore can sue all the way in solidum. But I think more so you can not…
I am very curious about your opinion:)
I am skeptical when it comes to the use of tort claims in the law of lading for the carriage of goods. Personally, I rather rule out the possibility, because it precluded any sense of transport law – carriage of all entrepreneurs responsible for damage to goods in transit on the basis of Article. 435 i 436 k.c. Just in case the CMR Convention is Article. 28, but in the transport law he's gone. Additionally, in this case, I have serious doubts, or leaving the vehicle in the parking lot is a feature tort. Without a doubt, is at fault, but the duty custody of the goods resulted from an agreement, so the lack of care is a breach of contract, and not breaking the law. It is difficult to speak of illegality within the meaning of. 415 k.c.
So in this respect our views clearly differ, but willingly zapoznałbym the judgment in such a case 🙂
question can actually leave the vehicle unattended in the parking lot is fairly debatable. But let's say two other situations – theft of cargo by the actual carrier and the second – damage to goods due to drunk driving (with the situation I now face). So if we have a clear legal infractions actual carrier.
It seems to me, że art. 28 as a rule does not exclude the intersection of two systems of, and so can be entered here in solidum…
It is hoped, I can get the judgment in this case, but the court dismissed the claim against all the carriers due to the lack of locus standi of the plaintiff. Judgment for the less favorable, but still no reply to the concern of the subject…. how to decide on such a solution for the driver on the gas, This of course let you know the result and send a copy of the justification:)
I greet and thank you very much for your help.
greetings
Art. 28 CMR even mention of such a junction, but it makes it possible to predict the occurrence of the law applicable to the relationship. Sometimes it will be a Polish law, but sometimes not. You would have to determine, where they had established the individual carriers. In the case of theft, no doubt we are dealing with crime and tort liability here would rather allowed. Except that most often this, who stole it is not a carrier, Only one, for him who gives. And in the case of drunk driving offense may be a driver, not a carrier. So much controversy about the. By the way, very interesting case, about which you write. For what reason the court did not consider the plaintiff's locus standi?
By the way I see, patron of the Lord is not only for public procurement law, but the main profile of the office 🙂
From the theft would agree, because in most situations it is actually a fake and nothing is impossible…but the driver, I extricated myself, because if he was on a contract of employment, So the employer is responsible, and then let him chase you regresowo.
And in the case of dismissal – action sued the owner of the goods, that was not the sender, or recipient… but that's just in line with your views of a person authorized, I've read:)
As a driver you can rely on Article. 120 k.p. but here again is a dispute whether in the course of their duties or on the occasion – was the topic of discussion in the entry kazusami 🙂 And as for judgment – I'm glad, that my views are sometimes are confirmed in practice 🙂 Just in this case I am not alone, doctrine because there is little dispute in this regard. Much more important is, such that the court issued a judgment on, in which the legal basis is given also to rules of tort. If the court found a lack of locus standi in this case, I think also spoke about the possibility of tort claims. In this type of claim would not be the limitations in Article. 75 paragraph. 3 Item 2 point b of transport law and this would legitymowanym, who suffered damage – in this case, the owner.
in this case the judgment there was no basis for tort – attorney pointed out only enigamtycznie, that everyone responsible under Article. 3 CMR… story of a drunken driver is for any other matter:)
🙂 google will tell you the truth:) oh even though the law is sometimes also PPLA nightmare, but to the CMR it is far:) nice exchange views with Mr.!
It really was not representative of large chance of success. Art. 3 CMR, after concerns that, that the main operator is responsible for its subcontractors, responsibility of the contractors not to mention. The only Polish comments to the CMR, in turn, clearly excludes the possibility of suing the subcontractors, So without more detailed arguments it was difficult to count on, share the sentiment that the court action. I understand, that the court relied on the judgment of the Supreme Court, in which the said, that in the absence of a person entitled to the CMR Convention, the provisions of traffic rights, which in turn involve the legitimacy of the right to dispose of delivery?
This is the Lord over me, that I would have to PZP afraid to approach 🙂 And as for CMR is unfortunately its shortcomings and gaps have been known for years (particularly with regard to standing or art. 29, whose content depends on where the procedure), but the prospect of a, to change all that I do not see any – procedure for amending the Convention shall be, rather that this does not happen. Sooner adopt a completely new. Also joining the protocol makes a lot of trouble – such as the Protocol on the electronic bill of lading, which is valid only in a few countries, Poland took a 30 years, to accede to the Protocol for SDR (moreover, in my opinion, unsuccessfully 🙂 )
exactly:)
ocenności terms and multiple views can be assumed, that in many situations, PPL and transport are very similar:) from what I observe, although she is not long, the question of legitimacy makes it very difficult. In practice this leads to the curios and the need for a more simple process where the facts, where it is clear who is actually responsible for the damage. And not yet lived to see a particular judgment, in which the court said, that we are dealing with successive transport…
Just read the European Transport Law, to see what is the scattering law in individual countries as to the legitimacy. But in Poland, stick to the Supreme Court ruling, and it usually works. And as for successive transport in Poland is not so yeti, no one met, and in other countries such as. Great Britain in this way are treated in the way of all subcontractors. Predictability in these cases is so unfortunately little.
Congratulations on a great blog, very well read.
Regarding topic – or if the contracting carrier, recipient who receives a claim for delay in transport, before paying anything recipient subcontractor brought an action against, This will have to show in the process, the recipient that the damage actually was and its size?
Will it even if you have to pay some amount as compensation for the damage and just sue lawsuit against subcontractor? I understand the fact paid by the recipient of contracting certain sums for damages for the delay is not sufficient to demonstrate in court, such damage has actually occurred?
Is it sufficient in this case will show before a court complaint filed by the recipient as a result of delays in transport?
Or is the contracting carrier in the trial against the contractor will have to provide stronger evidence, the recipient that the damage was? It may finally be as, that the recipient of such damage sucked from the finger, and the contracting carrier, without examining thoroughly the alleged recipient of the claim and seeking to repair the damage and present a claim to the subcontractor makes it unduly.
In such a situation, when it is not sure about the legitimacy of the claim recipient, safest for the contracting carrier will file a claim to the subcontractor until after the court case with the recipient, confirm the validity of the claim that the recipient.
@ Adam
Thank you very much for your kind words 🙂 A substantively: I believe, that the carrier, who is seeking compensation from the subcontractor, is required to show, that suffered damage. Evidence of this, that the damage is not the same and the load of the client. The carrier must demonstrate (of course, if it is disputed), that the issue of notes in the amount was justified. Pay the same amount as required by the client for the same reason is also not enough. The payment could be after unjustified. Otherwise it will be the case, when it is a final judgment against the carrier, but only if, the subcontractor was called to the process. Otherwise, it may raise the objection, that the carrier conducted properly process, and if he did it better, not have lost with the client and not have to pay the amount ultimately awarded.
Waiting for the verdict in the case brought by the client, however, can have negative consequences. Firstly, under the Polish traffic law may lead to a limitation in a claim against the subcontractor. The term runs for 6 months from the date of filing the petition – generally do not have a chance at the end of the proceedings in such a short time. Secondly, there is doubt whether the lawsuit against the contractor, the carrier may seek legal costs incurred in the first case (but this is a broad topic and write about it one day on the blog).
Good morning, na wstępie gratuluję bloga, kawał nieocenionej pomocy.
I have the following problem: przewoźnik z opóźnieniem dowiózł przesyłkę, “shipping” po kilku miesiącach obciążyła mnie karą umowną 300E, wcześniej była prowadzona korespondecja i proces reklamacyjny, ale zmuszona zostałam ją odrzucić, ponieważ dołączone było jedynie obciążenie dla tej spedycji. Pierwsza sprawa- spedycja spóźniła się reklamacją na pismie i wysłali po 24 On, czy to oznacza brak możliwości dochodzenia roszczenia, na gruncie Konwencji CMR? Kiedy ja mogę obciążyć przewoźnika faktycznego, ponieważ to była tylko i wyłącznie jego wina( wziął “po drodze” inny ładunek, który się opóźnił) i czy w stosunku do mnie też biegnie termin 21 days, który dawno już upłynął? Z góry dziękuję na odpowiedź
@ Dagna
Jeśli to przewóz międzynarodowy, to kara umowna za opóźnienei w dostawie w ogóle jest niedopuszczalna, ale rzeczywiście przekroczenie terminu 21 dni również załatwia sprawę.
Hello
mam problem , zlecono zaladunek spedycji nie wpisując w zlecenie wszystkich szczegolow .Spedytor podstawil samochod – okazało się ze samochod jest za niski i został odwołany.Czy spedytor w tym wypadku ma prawo wystawić fakturę na kwote która była podana w zleceniu na wykonanie usługi ?
@ Goshia
Spedytor ma prawo do całości wynagrodzenia pomniejszonego o kwotę, którą zaoszczędził przez to, that did not perform the order.