IS THE FAULT FOR FREIGHT DELAYING IN DELIVERY?

    Case

    April 24, 2002, Zhenghua Company (Import & Export Corporation) commissioned the 3000 box female gown to Nanyang company (freight forwarder) to transport from Shanghai to Tunisia RADES. Zhenhua companies for the reason of irregularity goods ready ask Nanyang company change the sailing date on April 29 to May 6, and do confirmation for BLO iussed by Nanyang company. Subsequently, Zhenhua company sent 100,000 U.S. dollars worth of goods to yard designated by Nanyang Company, but the goods are not transported in the 6 May. May 20, Zhenhua company commissioned Nanyang company to ship the goods once again. Other identification show that, in the same year on May to June, Zhenghua have received loan payment 75,000 U.S. dollars under this case. Zhenghua company said this payment came from other buyer the Dis company, when they decreased 25% payment.

    Trial

    Shanghai Maritime Court held that freight forwarding contractual relationship of Zhenhua company is  established. Nanyang Company should promptly arrange the goods for shipment. But Zhenhua company failed to provide the effective evidence to prove that Dis company have trade relations with Zhenghua company, and failed to prove that Dis company is the subject of  selling goods in lower prices, and failed to prove that the actual selling losses and decreaseing price losses have direct causal relationship with breach contract of Nanyang company. The Zhenhua take the legal consequences of no holding proof. Then court rule that they do not support the Zhenhua action

     So, Zhenhua company claims that he has proved the existence of trade relations with the Dis Company by offering damage letter, and the damage letter and cancel after verification have already prove the decreaseing price losses in this case. And Zhenghua appeal to the High Court of Shanghai for the a causal relationship between the losses and the delay of the goods transportation.

    The Nanyang company claims that the Zhenhua company have no evidence to prove that Dis company is the legal existence of overseas company, and the reason, goods are not scheduled for shipment, is the verbal notice to change the sailing date on May 6 by the verbal notice of Zhenhua company; And in the same year on May 20, Nanyang company has arrange to transport the goods in timely, and he should not be liable to defend the grounds.

    During the second trial, the Zhenhua company provide a fax Original trade contracts signed with Dis company, and the content of this is that the Zhenhua sell about 1.2 million dozen female gown for Dis company and shipment is before 12 April 2002, to prove the existence Dis company. cross-exam that the time of the material does not meet the April 1, 2002 enactment of the "evidence on a number of Civil Procedure" and it is not new evidence. The fox can not prove the exist of Dis company. But the hight court certified that the trade contract is the original fax and ont alone card, so the evidence is effectiveness

    Shanghai High Court identify that Nanyang company have confirmed the bill of lading issued by Zhenhua company to schedules shipment on May 6, and Zhenhua signed confirmation in the bill of lading. During the second trial, Nanyang company does not provide Zhenhua company irregularity of goods ready and stocking of trade for which the goods are not shipped in the May 6. the payment letter of Dis compnay show that the good not sailing in May 6 cause the reduction of 25% price. Ascertain, the amount of this case is 100 thousands, the 75% of reduction is 75 thousands.

    Is less than or caused by goods involved in the May 6 the evidence is not shipped in time. Meredith Corporation May 14, 2002 claim letter state thatSunrise 25% price reduction. Another identified the prices of goods involved in the case of, or 7.5 million. The trial identified the other facts are clear and should be recognized.

    Shanghai High Court think that the freight forwarding contract between Zhenhua company and Nanyang company is true and valid, and the payment letter prove the exist of Dis company, the payment letter and payment notice prove the trade relationship between Zhenghua and Dis company. The contract proved by Zhenghua is strong evidence not the new evidence. The losses of Zhenghua is relate with the delay of goods transport. In view of reinforcing Zhenhua offers strong evidence, the original verdict conclusions should be removed. Thus ruling: 1 removed original verdict; 2, Nanyang compensated the lost of Zhenhua company 25,000 U.S. dollars .

    Comment

    Plaintiff wins the case following four major issues. 1, original fax in combination with other evidence can be as evidences. 2, identified the date of shipment of goods to identify and change, should be identified the burden of proof. 3, loss of price reduction is real. 4, the fault behavior of Nanyang company has a causal relationship between lower prices.