New Flashcards
Norfolk Southern v. Kirby
Issue:
Whether Norfolk Southern Railway Co., a downstream inland carrier, can benefit from the liability limitations established in the upstream shipping contracts (bills of lading) when the cargo was damaged during transport.
Rule:
Under federal admiralty law, when an intermediary contracts with a carrier to transport goods, the cargo owner’s recovery against the carrier is limited by the liability limitations agreed upon between the intermediary and the carrier.
Himalaya Clauses in bills of lading may extend liability protections to downstream carriers if properly worded.
Agency principles derived from Great Northern R. Co. v. O’Connor (1914) allow an intermediary to bind the cargo owner to liability limitations for downstream carriers.
Analysis:
The Supreme Court first determined that the shipping contracts (bills of lading) had a substantial maritime connection and were governed by federal admiralty law.
The Court rejected the Eleventh Circuit’s interpretation that a high degree of specificity or contractual privity was necessary to extend liability limitations to inland carriers like Norfolk. The ICC bill’s Himalaya Clause explicitly extended the limitation of liability to “any independent contractor,” which included Norfolk.
Regarding the Hamburg Süd bill of lading, the Court reasoned that ICC acted as Kirby’s limited agent when contracting for liability terms with Hamburg Süd. The Court emphasized that allowing intermediaries to negotiate binding liability limitations ensured the efficiency and predictability of shipping contracts.
Relying on Great Northern, the Court held that Norfolk could rely on the liability limitations in the Hamburg Süd bill. The Court reasoned that requiring downstream carriers to ascertain the relationships among various intermediaries and cargo owners would be unworkable and costly.
The decision ensured that Kirby retained the right to seek additional compensation from ICC, which was aware of both contracts and could bridge any gap in liability coverage.
Conclusion:
The Supreme Court reversed the Eleventh Circuit, holding that Norfolk Southern Railway Co. could benefit from the liability limitations in both the ICC and Hamburg Süd bills of lading. This decision reinforced the predictability and reliability of liability limitations in maritime and intermodal shipping contracts.
What do Incoterms aim to alleviate?
Difficulties involved in the interpretation of international commercial terms and international commercial law.
In a CIF contract, what is the seller required to arrange?
- Goods to be loaded on board a ship
- A contract of affreightment
- Insurance on usual terms
- An invoice
- Tendering documents to the buyer.
What was the buyer’s position regarding payment in the Biddell Brothers case?
The buyer argued that the contract did not explicitly call for payment against documents, allowing payment upon delivery after inspection.
What does CIF stand for?
Cost, Insurance, and Freight.
True or False: The seller must provide insurance under a CIF contract.
True.
What was the key issue in the Biddell Brothers v. E. Clemens Horst Company case?
Whether the buyer must pay against the bill of lading or can wait until actual delivery and inspection of the goods.
According to the Sale of Goods Act, when is payment typically due?
Against delivery.
Fill in the blank: The seller must tender the _______ to the buyer upon arrival.
bill of lading.
What happens if the goods are lost at sea according to Kennedy, Lord Justice?
The buyer must pay upon tender of the bill of lading and insurance policy.
What did the court conclude regarding the buyer’s right to inspect the goods before payment?
The buyer has the option to choose between accepting the bill of lading or inspecting the goods.
What did Hamilton J. state regarding payment against shipping documents?
There is no implied condition for payment against documents without express contract terms.
What is the significance of the bill of lading in the context of a CIF contract?
It serves as a symbolical delivery of the goods.
What was the outcome of the appeal in the Biddell Brothers case?
The appeal was allowed and judgment entered for the plaintiffs.
What is the implication of tendering the bill of lading before the ship’s arrival?
The seller is not required to defer tendering until after goods are landed and inspected.
What must the seller do to fulfill a CIF contract?
Arrange and pay for freight and insurance, and tender the necessary documents for payment.
True or False: A buyer can never refuse to pay based on the condition of the goods upon delivery.
False.
What is the buyer’s right if he does not accept the bill of lading?
The buyer may choose to inspect the goods before payment.
What does the term ‘c.i.f.’ imply about the pricing of goods?
The price includes cost, insurance, and freight.
K Line Case
Train derailment in OK.
K” Line’s through bills contain five relevant provisions. First, they include a so-called “Himalaya Clause,” which extends the bills’ defenses and limitations on liability to parties that sign subcontracts to perform services contemplated by the bills. Second, the bills permit “K” Line “to subcontract on any terms whatsoever” for the completion of the journey. Third, the bills provide that COGSA’s terms govern the entire journey. Fourth, the bills require that any dispute will be governed by Japanese law. Fifth, the bills state that any action relating to the carriage must be brought in “Tokyo District Court in Japan.” The forum selection provision in the last clause gives rise to the dispute here.
Supreme court said Carmack does not apply as it was a single bill of lading which contained a Himalaya clause.
Carmack provisions
The Carmack Amendment (49 U.S.C. § 14706 and § 11706) governs carrier liability for loss or damage to goods in U.S. interstate commerce. It holds carriers strictly liable for damages unless they can prove specific defenses (Act of God, public authority, shipper fault, inherent vice, or public enemy). Shippers must show the goods were delivered in good condition, damaged in transit, and quantify the loss. Carriers can limit their liability through clear terms in the bill of lading. The Carmack Amendment preempts conflicting state laws, providing a uniform legal framework. Claims must be filed within nine months, and lawsuits within two years after claim denial.
Steel Coils, Inc. v. M/V Lake Marion
Key point in this case is a clean bill of lading
