Location via proxy:   [ UP ]  
[Report a bug]   [Manage cookies]                
Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 394 views

    Ysmael vs. Barreto

    Uploaded by

    jan nino
    This case considers whether a provision in a bill of lading that limits a carrier's liability to P300 per package is reasonable. The court held that it was not reasonable and that common carriers cannot exempt themselves from liability unless the exemption is just, reasonable, and the contract is entered into freely. In this case, the shipment of 164 cases of silk worth P2,500 each was a regular business transaction, but the liability limit would have allowed the carrier to pay only P300 per case, far below the actual value. Such a low liability limit is unconscionable and against public policy.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Ysmael vs. Barreto

    Uploaded by

    jan nino
    394 views1 page
    This case considers whether a provision in a bill of lading that limits a carrier's liability to P300 per package is reasonable. The court held that it was not reasonable and that common carriers cannot exempt themselves from liability unless the exemption is just, reasonable, and the contract is entered into freely. In this case, the shipment of 164 cases of silk worth P2,500 each was a regular business transaction, but the liability limit would have allowed the carrier to pay only P300 per case, far below the actual value. Such a low liability limit is unconscionable and against public policy.

    Original Description:

    dagul

    Original Title

    27. Ysmael vs. Barreto

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    This case considers whether a provision in a bill of lading that limits a carrier's liability to P300 per package is reasonable. The court held that it was not reasonable and that common carriers cannot exempt themselves from liability unless the exemption is just, reasonable, and the contract is entered into freely. In this case, the shipment of 164 cases of silk worth P2,500 each was a regular business transaction, but the liability limit would have allowed the carrier to pay only P300 per case, far below the actual value. Such a low liability limit is unconscionable and against public policy.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    394 views1 page

    Ysmael vs. Barreto

    Uploaded by

    jan nino
    This case considers whether a provision in a bill of lading that limits a carrier's liability to P300 per package is reasonable. The court held that it was not reasonable and that common carriers cannot exempt themselves from liability unless the exemption is just, reasonable, and the contract is entered into freely. In this case, the shipment of 164 cases of silk worth P2,500 each was a regular business transaction, but the liability limit would have allowed the carrier to pay only P300 per case, far below the actual value. Such a low liability limit is unconscionable and against public policy.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    You are on page 1of 1

    ISSUE:

    Ysmael vs. BarrettoG.R. No. L-28028; Whether or not provision 12 in the bill of
    November 25, 1927Keywor ! lading is reasonable.

    Defendants (carrier) stipulate that it is not HELD:


    liable for loss or damage to an amount
    No. A common carrier cannot lawfully stipulate
    exceeding P300 per package of silk
    for exemption from liability unless such
    DOCTRINE: exemption is just and reasonable and the
    contract is freely and fairly made.
    A common carrier cannot lawfully stipulate for
    exemption from liability unless such exemption In The Case at Bar,
    is just and reasonable and the contract is freely
    The ship in question was a common carrier
    and fairly made.
    and as such, must have been operated as a
    FACTS: public utility. It is a matter of common
    knowledge that large quantities of silk are
    In this action plaintiff, a domestic corporation
    imported in the Philippine Islands and that
    seeks to recover from the defendants P 9,940
    after being imported; they are sold by the
    the alleged value of four cases of merchandise
    merchants in Manila and other large seaports,
    which it delivered to the steamship Andres, at
    and then shipped to different points and places
    Manila to be shipped to Surigao, but which
    in the Islands.
    were never delivered to Salomon Sharuff, the
    consignee, or returned to the plaintiff. Hence, there is nothing unusual about the
    shipment of silk. In truth and in fact, it is
    The defendants alleged that under provision 12
    a matter of usual and ordinary business" –
    of the bill of lading, the carrier shall not be
    There was no fraud or concealment in the
    liable for loss or damage from any cause or for
    shipment in question. Clause 12 above quoted
    any reason to an amount exceeding three
    places a limit of P300 “for any single package
    hundred pesos (P300) Philippine currency for
    of silk." The evidence shows that 164 “cases”
    any single package of silk or other valuable
    were shipped, and that the value of each case
    cargo. Thus, the defendants alleged that they
    was never near P2, 500. In this situation, the
    are not liable in excess of three hundred pesos
    limit of defendants, “liability for each case of
    (P300) for any package of silk.
    silk” for loss or damage from any cause or for
    The lower court points out that the conditions any reason” would put it in the power of the
    (provision) in question “are not printed on the defendants to have taken the whole cargo of
    triplicate copies which were delivered to the 164 cases of silk at a valuation of P300 for
    plaintiff,” and that by reason thereof they “are each case, or less than one-eight of its actual
    not binding upon the plaintiff” and thus value. If that rule of law should be sustained,
    rendered judgment for the plaintiff for the full no silk should ever be shipped from one island
    amount of its claim. to another in the Philippines, Such a limitation
    of value is unconscionable and void as against
    public policy.

    You might also like