1. Supreme Court of 25 January 2007 r. ref. Act V CSK 420/06
2. Judgment of the Court of Appeal in Białystok of 15 mark 2006 r. ref. Akt I ACA 48/06
CMR Convention
1. Supreme Court of 3 September 2003 r. ref. Akt II CKN 415/01
2. Supreme Court of 5 December 2003 r. ref. Act V, CK 264/02
Dear Counselor, Do you know of any decisions regarding the violation of the prohibition of competition in the relations carrier / shipper or carrier / operator. Is it true, that no one has managed to win a penalty associated with the violation of the prohibition? What is your opinion about this type of clauses in the contracts “unstable” (the regulations contain a clause) and in the case of permanent cooperation agreement in this penalty stipulated kt? What can be the consequences of “steal” principals? All reviews on the internet are very brief… We will be very grateful 🙂
@ Viola
I do not know, where does the belief, The penalties for violating the ban is ineffective. Personally opportunity to exercise several times a penalty every time the amount of several thousand. Of course, much depends on the quality of classification – some of them can really be considered to be ineffective, but generally rather not count on it, that the breach of non-competition remain unpunished. Of course, every time you need to take into account the possibility of penalties zmiarkowania, but the possibility of having recourse to this depends on the specific circumstances.
Counselor Lord with all due respect , and the law on the prohibition of monopoly does not preclude the enclosure of that non-competition , more so because it is a free market and nobody can forbid me anything.
@ Wiesław
Of course, that under certain conditions imposed on non-competition clause could be considered abuse of dominant position, only rarely that a transport company is in a particular market dominant position (above 40 % market share). I must distinguish between the situation, if someone tries to Mr. limit the right to operate, situation, when the Lord himself is limited by a, Mr. contract that includes, in which there is such a requirement. Signing the agreement is still a voluntary basis, So you need not to do.
Według mnie nie ma zasady. Wszystko zależy od treści klauzuli.
Często są nieprecyzyjne i wadliwe. Dlatego Sądy uznają je za bezwględnie nieważne.
Panie mecenasie domyślam się jednak, że w sprawach w których Pan uzyskał orzeczenie korzystne dla klienta – klauzule były precyzyjne np. określono czas obowiązywania zakazu oraz ekwiwalent pieniężny.
“Przewożnik zobowiązuje się do przestrzegania zasady neutralności wobec naszego klienta i niepodejmowanie wszelkich działań i kontaktów konkurencyjnych w trakcie realizacji zlecenia jak również po jego wykonaniu pod rygorem kary umownej do 100 000 zł.
Tak klauzula jest co najmniej wątpliwa.
@ Peter
Indeed, the key is the correct formulation of the clause. The more imprecise, the greater the chance, that is challenged. Example given by the Lord really in doubt and would have a good chance in court gulf.
Dear Counselor
Based on the knowledge of the Lord and experience in transport law, I would like to know, if you had to deal with such a situation: consignor has made a complaint to the courier company because of damage. Because it lacked several documents, They asked to supplement their complaints under pain of leaving without a diagnosis. Unfortunately employee missed deadline. Teraz nadawca chce ponownie złożyć reklamację (teraz ze wszystkimi niezbędnymi dokumentami), jednak firma kurierska odmawia jej przyjęcia twierdząc, że ostateczna decyzja została już przekazana (tj. o pozostawieniu bez rozpoznania). Czy takie postępowanie jest prawidłowe? Czy to, że uchybiło się pierwszemu terminowi, makes, iż nie można ponownie wnieść reklamacji?
@ Thomas
Not, takie postępowanie nie jest prawidłowe. Niedotrzymanie terminu uzupełnienia reklamacji nie powoduje, że poszkodowany traci prawo do dochodzenia roszczeń. Można złożyć kolejną reklamację, ewentualnie skierować sprawę do sądu.
DEAR SIR Patrons,
I have a question about the correctness of the following clause:
“During the term of this Agreement, the order and at the end of the period 6 months Contractor agrees not to undertake activities in the Principal, under threat of a penalty equal to 10.000 EUR. In particular, without the express written consent of the Principal Contractor is not allowed to conclude contracts, directly or through other persons, with contractors and customers Principal in logistics and transportation (zakaz konkurencji). The content is confidential Transport Orders. Breach of the principle of confidentiality and any action that may prejudice the interests of the Client are the basis for breaking the contract and damage investigation in court”.
I would add that I mean a situation in which the carrier is working with me on the same order, with the same client, on the same route and is fully aware of who is the client and the client who is a carrier. This leads to bypass my business and implement transport. What are my options?
Is a carrier of the defendants Szczecina.Byłem of competition in the transport ban ,I won the case on appeal / 01.16.2020 /, forwarding suffered considerable koszty.Najwazniejsza the operative part of the judgment is,an order for transport was agreed by phone ,Price,route,Freight date rozł.załadunku,and only came after a conversation with the order 25 points objections which was not signed by us and sent.
Mr. Patron, is this clause justified??Thank you for opinion.
*The Contractor is bound by the absolute legal protection of the data and interests of the Principal's clients during the performance of the contract and during the period 2 years after its completion. A breach of the above obligation shall be considered, in particular, to submit offers directly to the Principal's contractors and to carry out transports on their behalf without the intermediation of the Principal. Each entity will be considered the client of the Principal, at which loading or unloading takes place during the execution of the order given to the Contractor, each entity indicated in the consignment note as the sender or recipient during the execution of the order given to the Contractor, as well as any entity, about which the Contractor is known, that he has given the order to transport the Principal, which was then entrusted to the Contractor. In the event of a breach by the Contractor of the obligation set out in this point, The Ordering Party has the right to charge a contractual penalty of EUR 100,000 for each violation. The Contractor's remuneration provided for in this contract also includes the obligation to comply with the provisions of this point