The concept of the sender shipment of goods

Scientific publications on transport law does not have much, but just this spring, there were a few interesting items. The some I wrote, the other I write in the future 🙂 Some time ago I decided to throw his brick to the broader science of traffic rights, and my article entitled “The concept of the sender in the light of recent developments in transport” was published in addition to the scientific Counsel No. 134 in February 2013 r. and today I write about him a few words 🙂

In this article I try to deal with a fairly common mistake of confusing the sender shipper. His writing made me that, this time the error committed …legislator. Changing traffic right on 01.01.2012 r. legislator has introduced a highly unfortunate record in art. 55to ust 2 transport law which is, that the provisions of Article. 55to ust. 1 the responsibilities of the sender shall accordingly apply to other entities that outsource transportation, as if there were some entities that hire transport, that broadcasters are not.

In this article I am presenting the current views of doctrine and jurisprudence, that with few exceptions clearly indicate, that for the sender on the traffic to be considered any entity, which includes a contract of carriage with the carrier, and so is the person who arranges transport, and not podmiot, which makes the physical loading of the goods on the vehicle.

Also introduce a number of negative effects, that would have, if indeed the sender in transport law was understood as an entity who load, how could he suggest such a provision inserted into the transport law. These effects are particularly depriving the party ordering the transport of non-shipper while any power of transport law (provisions cover only the permissions sender), impose a number of obligations on a non-party to the contract (charging party goods very often there is no agreement with the carrier, transport and law provide for a number of obligations sender to the carrier) or limiting the defense of the carrier in case of fault of the party ordering transport (excludes the liability of the carrier m.in. Wine sender).

In conclusion, I consider, that the provision of Article. 55to ust. 2 transport law should be interpreted in this way,, that for shippers, customers and other people ordering transport constitutes a statutory superfluum (provision of unnecessary or repetitive content resulting from any rule), a for the sender continues to be regarded as any entity which commissions transport.

If you are interested, do not alienate much legal language, I invite you to read full article 🙂