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

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 180 views

    Iron Bulk V Remington

    Uploaded by

    Elaizza Concepcion
    This case involves a dispute over 194 steel sheets that were found to be wet and rusted after shipping from Poland to the Philippines. Remington Industrial, the buyer of the sheets, filed a claim against the charterer Iron Bulk Shipping and others for the damage to the cargo. Iron Bulk argued that the sheets were already rusty when loaded, but the clean bill of lading it issued did not note any defects. The court found that Iron Bulk did not exercise extraordinary diligence as the carrier and was bound by the bill of lading, meaning it was liable for the damage, even if the sheets were previously damaged. The court also held that carriers have a responsibility to prevent further damage to cargo, even if already in poor condition

    Copyright:

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

    Iron Bulk V Remington

    Uploaded by

    Elaizza Concepcion
    180 views1 page
    This case involves a dispute over 194 steel sheets that were found to be wet and rusted after shipping from Poland to the Philippines. Remington Industrial, the buyer of the sheets, filed a claim against the charterer Iron Bulk Shipping and others for the damage to the cargo. Iron Bulk argued that the sheets were already rusty when loaded, but the clean bill of lading it issued did not note any defects. The court found that Iron Bulk did not exercise extraordinary diligence as the carrier and was bound by the bill of lading, meaning it was liable for the damage, even if the sheets were previously damaged. The court also held that carriers have a responsibility to prevent further damage to cargo, even if already in poor condition

    Original Title

    IRON BULK V REMINGTON

    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 involves a dispute over 194 steel sheets that were found to be wet and rusted after shipping from Poland to the Philippines. Remington Industrial, the buyer of the sheets, filed a claim against the charterer Iron Bulk Shipping and others for the damage to the cargo. Iron Bulk argued that the sheets were already rusty when loaded, but the clean bill of lading it issued did not note any defects. The court found that Iron Bulk did not exercise extraordinary diligence as the carrier and was bound by the bill of lading, meaning it was liable for the damage, even if the sheets were previously damaged. The court also held that carriers have a responsibility to prevent further damage to cargo, even if already in poor condition

    Copyright:

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

    Iron Bulk V Remington

    Uploaded by

    Elaizza Concepcion
    This case involves a dispute over 194 steel sheets that were found to be wet and rusted after shipping from Poland to the Philippines. Remington Industrial, the buyer of the sheets, filed a claim against the charterer Iron Bulk Shipping and others for the damage to the cargo. Iron Bulk argued that the sheets were already rusty when loaded, but the clean bill of lading it issued did not note any defects. The court found that Iron Bulk did not exercise extraordinary diligence as the carrier and was bound by the bill of lading, meaning it was liable for the damage, even if the sheets were previously damaged. The court also held that carriers have a responsibility to prevent further damage to cargo, even if already in poor condition

    Copyright:

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

    IRON BULK v.

    REMINGTON
    1 GR 136960, December 08, 2003

    Except in the cases mentioned under Art. 1734, if the goods


    FACTS: are lost, destroyed or deteriorated, common carriers are
    Remington Industrial ordered 194 hot rolled steel sheets, presumed to have been at fault or to have acted negligently
    weighing 686.656 metric tons with a total value of unless they prove that they observed extraordinary diligence.
    P6,469,759.17, from Wangs Company. Wangs forwarded the
    order to its supplier Burwill. The sheets were loaded on MV
    Indian Reliance in Poland and shipped to the Philippines under ISSUE 2:
    a Bill of Lading. Iron Bulk Shipping represented the charterer in Whether or not the CA erred in relying on the pro forma Bill of
    the Philippines. Lading– NO.

    Remington had the cargo insured during the voyage by Marine HELD:
    Insurance Policy issued by defendant Pioneer Asia Insurance
    Corporation. TWO-FOLD CHARACTER:

    Upon discharge of the cargo, the sheets were found to be wet A bill of lading operates as both a receipt and a contract. It is a
    and with rust extending to 50 to 80% of each plate. Plaintiff receipt for the goods shipped (dates, place, description, quality
    filed for formal claims for loss amounting to P544,875.17 with and value) and a contract to transport and deliver the same as
    Pioneer, Iron Bulk, Manila Port Services and ESE Brokerage therein stipulated. 
    Corporation. ESTOPPEL:
    No one honored the claims of loss and as recourse, Remington Since Iron Bulk shipping failed to annotate in the bill of lading
    filed an action for collection against Wangs, Pioneer and Iron the alleged damaged condition of the cargo when it was
    Bulk. Both lower and appellate courts ruled in favor of loaded, they are bound by the description contained therein
    Remington. and they are now estopped from denying the contents of the
    The charterer‘s defense (Iron Bulk) was that the sheets were said bill of lading.
    already rusty when they were loaded on the ship. However, the
    Bill of Lading it issued was found to be a clean bill of lading  
    (i.e. it does not indicate any defect on the goods covered by it).
    The sheets were found to be in a fair, usually accepted
    condition.

    The supplier‘s defense (Wangs) was that Iron Bulk did not
    exercise extraordinary diligence in shipping the sheets. 

    The appellate court dismissed the case against Wangs and


    now, only Iron Bulk raised the case on certiorari.

    ISSUE 1:
    Whether or not Iron Bulk exercised extraordinary diligence. –
    NO

    HELD:

    DILIGENCE REQUIRED:

    Even if the cargo was already in a damaged condition at the


    time it was accepted for transportation, the carrier is not
    relieved from its responsibility to exercise due care in handling
    the merchandise and in employing the necessary precautions
    to prevent the cargo from further deteriorating.  

    Extraordinary diligence requires the common carrier to know


    and to follow the required precaution for avoiding damage to,
    or destruction of the goods entrusted to it for safe carriage and
    delivery.  The common carrier must exercise due diligence to
    forestall or lessen the loss (by applying additional safety
    measures to make sure that the cargo is protected from
    corrosion). 

    PRESUMPTION:

    You might also like