New book about CMR

This spring promises to be very interesting for lovers of transport law. Appeared on the market for a new book titled Krzysztof Wesolowski. „Contract for the carriage of goods by road from CMR"Released by Wolters Kluwer. I had the opportunity to pre-acquainted with it, and although a more detailed review will have time, Today I share with you my impressions.

Personally, I think Dr.. Wesolowski's greatest expert on the CMR Convention in Poland, which has been dealing with this issue and is the author of the only, so far, comment to the CMR Convention, the latest version is included in the Commentary on the provisions on transport and shipping - Created position of unquestioned authority in the field of transport law professor. Wladyslaw Gorski. Knowing some time about the forthcoming new publication, eagerly expecting the release. After an initial reading of selected passages I can say one: I was not disappointed. But one by one.

As the title implies, the book is devoted to the legal aspects of international road haulage of goods subject to the CMR Convention. This is not a comment but a monograph, although its complexity makes, you can go ahead and call it a textbook for the course knowledge of the CMR Convention (where no doubt it is a textbook for advanced 🙂 ). In this respect, like the Anglo-Saxon literature and fine work prof. Clarke’a and Hilla the Messenta.

My attention from the very beginning have asked not only the size of the work (840 sites), but also a very rich literature (269 position, of which 100 foreign) and case (624 ruling, of which 589 foreign). It guarantees, the views of the author are the result of a thorough analysis of the subject.

After the initial reading of a particularly valuable I describe the topic of legitimacy to claim, where the author, Although, differs from the case-law of the Supreme Court, but the concept presented in the book links the legitimacy of the law of the shipment (without reference to national law) offered a number of arguments, in particular the universality, while the views of the Supreme Court, that the legitimacy to claim depends on the national law, is difficult to reconcile with the primary objective of the CMR Convention, which was to harmonize the rules on contract for international carriage of goods by road.

Very interesting are also ramblings of one of the most difficult issues in the CMR or the successive carriers. The author does not agree with the general in Polish (but not limited to) jurisprudence adversary of subcontractors successive carriers and considers, subcontract that may lead to a gradual implementation of transport.

These two examples are the expression of a large difference between the Commentary to the CMR Convention, written by the same author the initial version before more than 15 years, and then slightly modified, and the current position. Commenting on much of the views of others is present (especially in the case law), now the author boldly presents their ideas, who are at this very thoroughly motivated.

Of course, in accordance with the principle of, where two lawyers that there were three views and four conflicting opinions, not all theses books can not agree 🙂 My doubts are raised by the issue of zwłascza grant recipients by the author's standing to pursue claims against the subcontractors of parent – I personally think, that the recipient establishes a contractual relationship only with the main carrier, the opposite view blurs the difference between subcontracting and successive transport. As a result, it is difficult for me to accept the view, that the claims of parent to substitute for early customer satisfaction are supported only in the way of subrogation (even though I support the application of this principle in the case of claims arising out of carriage), because this rule does not in any legal system will apply, and the Convention itself should give this right main carrier. Yet it is impossible not to admit, that the concept of the author is extremely consistent, which makes it very attractive.

This assessment applies to the majority of the author's views expressed in the book. The only inconsistency, we saw, appeared in the case of describing the presumption associated with specific risks in transport, in applications where the author defined the, that the carrier is required to substantiate both the releasing condition, as well as the causal link between it and the damage, although earlier in – I think the most correct – indicated, presumption that just makes, causation that disclosure is not necessary, it is sufficient to demonstrate the very possibility of damage to the cause of.

This note can not change the very positive assessment described the book. I can safely say, that it is the work, I was waiting for years and It is absolutely mandatory position not only on the shelf of every lawyer involved in the international carriage of goods by road, but also in the library of every commercial court. I do not hide because, that, in my opinion, the level of knowledge of the CMR Convention in economic courts could be higher, and the indicated position it could drastically improve.

At the end of curiosity – I am delighted, that among the cited literature are also published by me, including entries in this blog. As you can see blogs can also be a source cites, in the work of scientific 🙂