Therefore, the Ningbo Maritime Court did not support the plaintiff’s claim for
economic losses.
Another case which also concerns the breach of a carriage of goods by sea
contract, is Dalian Tianyi International Trade Co., Ltd. v. A Co.
10 The plaintiff in
this case imported oil asphalt, from Bahamas (port of loading) to Tianjin Xingang
(port of discharge). The plaintiff obtained the original bill of lading and required the
defendant to deliver the goods with the original bill of lading. The defendant refused
to deliver the goods because the plaintiff had concealed the dangerous nature of the
goods. As a result, the plaintiff failed to fulfill the domestic contract and the resale
contract was cancelled according to law, resulting in the plaintiff suffering a huge
economic loss.
The plaintiff claimed that the defendant should have delivered the goods at
Tianjin Xingang port in accordance with the bill of lading; and must therefore
compensate for the loss of goods, the corresponding interest and the economic losses
that the plaintiff had suffered. The Tianjin Maritime Court held that contractual
obligations and rights of both sides were rooted in the carriage of goods by sea
contract which had been incorporated into the bill of lading. But the bill of lading did
not provide for compensation of the anticipated loss of profits and loss resulting from
breach of contract. The defendant’s obligation to fulfill the contract was restricted to
transporting and delivering the goods to the plaintiff. The expected loss of profits,
liquidated damages and other losses claimed by the plaintiff were beyond the
carrier’s reasonable foresight under the contract. Therefore, the plaintiff’s claims
for expected loss of profits and liquidated damages could not be supported.
3.2 Carrier’s Responsibility for Costs Connected to Loss
of Goods
Generally, costs incurred after the loss or damage suffered by goods include cargo
damage inspection fees, garbage disposal costs, costs of cleaning containers, etc. The
question is whether these costs should be borne by the carrier. Although, generally
speaking, the Maritime Courts are not inclined to entertain cargo owners’ claims for
economic losses, they do support their claims for other costs relating to the loss of or
damage to goods in accordance with relevant provisions of the Contract Law.
In Zhejiang Fisheries Co., Ltd. v. Shanghai Haihua Shipping Co., Ltd,
11 for
example, a case which also dealt with cargo damage compensation under a carriage
of goods by sea contract, the plaintiff entrusted the defendant to transport a batch of
flowers which was worth for JPY 10, 023,350 from Shanghai to Nagoya, Japan. The
defendant’s cargo was to arrive at the port of destination on September 11, 2009, but
the goods arrived in Nagoya on 18 September, 2009. The Japanese Maritime
10 No.101 Judgement [2011], First Instance, Tianjin Maritime Court.
11 No.1029 Judgement [2010], First Instance, Shanghai Maritime Court.
214
L. Han and S. Cai
economic losses.
Another case which also concerns the breach of a carriage of goods by sea
contract, is Dalian Tianyi International Trade Co., Ltd. v. A Co.
10 The plaintiff in
this case imported oil asphalt, from Bahamas (port of loading) to Tianjin Xingang
(port of discharge). The plaintiff obtained the original bill of lading and required the
defendant to deliver the goods with the original bill of lading. The defendant refused
to deliver the goods because the plaintiff had concealed the dangerous nature of the
goods. As a result, the plaintiff failed to fulfill the domestic contract and the resale
contract was cancelled according to law, resulting in the plaintiff suffering a huge
economic loss.
The plaintiff claimed that the defendant should have delivered the goods at
Tianjin Xingang port in accordance with the bill of lading; and must therefore
compensate for the loss of goods, the corresponding interest and the economic losses
that the plaintiff had suffered. The Tianjin Maritime Court held that contractual
obligations and rights of both sides were rooted in the carriage of goods by sea
contract which had been incorporated into the bill of lading. But the bill of lading did
not provide for compensation of the anticipated loss of profits and loss resulting from
breach of contract. The defendant’s obligation to fulfill the contract was restricted to
transporting and delivering the goods to the plaintiff. The expected loss of profits,
liquidated damages and other losses claimed by the plaintiff were beyond the
carrier’s reasonable foresight under the contract. Therefore, the plaintiff’s claims
for expected loss of profits and liquidated damages could not be supported.
3.2 Carrier’s Responsibility for Costs Connected to Loss
of Goods
Generally, costs incurred after the loss or damage suffered by goods include cargo
damage inspection fees, garbage disposal costs, costs of cleaning containers, etc. The
question is whether these costs should be borne by the carrier. Although, generally
speaking, the Maritime Courts are not inclined to entertain cargo owners’ claims for
economic losses, they do support their claims for other costs relating to the loss of or
damage to goods in accordance with relevant provisions of the Contract Law.
In Zhejiang Fisheries Co., Ltd. v. Shanghai Haihua Shipping Co., Ltd,
11 for
example, a case which also dealt with cargo damage compensation under a carriage
of goods by sea contract, the plaintiff entrusted the defendant to transport a batch of
flowers which was worth for JPY 10, 023,350 from Shanghai to Nagoya, Japan. The
defendant’s cargo was to arrive at the port of destination on September 11, 2009, but
the goods arrived in Nagoya on 18 September, 2009. The Japanese Maritime
10 No.101 Judgement [2011], First Instance, Tianjin Maritime Court.
11 No.1029 Judgement [2010], First Instance, Shanghai Maritime Court.
214
L. Han and S. Cai