The processes associated with the transportation side surprisingly often focus their activity on determining the probative, Who is liable for the damage, a lot less importance to that loss - its size, value, and even whether or not it was. However, in many cases, it is this sphere determines the favorable resolution of a dispute or not.
Danish court verdict
To write this note inspired me judgment Danish Sø- og Handelsretten w Kopenhadze (Maritime and Commercial Court) the Danish dairy cheeses on Bornholm transported to Greece. The ruling had the opportunity to become familiar with Newsletter Danish firm Juno specializing in transportation issues, which by the way I highly recommend readers.
As described on the recipient refused to receive him cheese delivered, arguing that their improper temperatures. On-site, however, was not carried out a thorough inspection of cheese only deciding about his return to Denmark. There was a, the cheese is not really suitable for use. Broadcaster costs charged to the carrier of the goods lost. The defending himself, arguing, that the cheese was not in bad shape when you arrive in Greece, and his corruption was on the way back to the sender. Moreover indicated, even if cheese is not substantially fully value, it should decide to attempt the sale in Greece at a reduced price, which could lead to a reduction in damage.
The trial court agreed with the carrier, Recognizing the, that since there has been no examination of the goods by the recipient, the sender does not prove, that the goods on the date of its delivery was defective. The court also upheld the carrier's second argument and confirmed, that by opting for re-shipment of goods, sender alone led to a total loss of cargo.
Without knowing the file, hard to figure out, Danish cheese that was already broken at the time of delivery to a consignee. Perhaps it was, but the reason has not been able to prove, and possibly, I did not even attempt to do so.
Improper Practice
I mention this matter, described the case as it is not yet isolated. I met repeatedly with situations because, the victim as evidence of the damage showed only such. study showing the wrong product temperature (which is not always equivalent to the detriment), account, which has been charged by any other entity (without showing, that this person had the right to such a bill in the amount put) or one-sided protocol shortages made without the driver by a warehouseman recipient. Of course there is always this kind of documents are baseless, but in many cases will not be sufficient to demonstrate the extent of the damage and the amount. Interestingly, in many such cases, carriers rather uncritically accepted such evidence, even though the contest could turn the tide of the process.
Therefore, being on either side of the dispute, it is good to look critically at the materials showing injury. The carrier can find a chance to avoid liability, evidence of the weakness of the enemy. The victim may, prior to referral to the court to make sure, he did everything, to put forward his claims have been dismissed as unproven.
