Pardon my 'UN-BAR-LIKE' penmanship. This is my desperate 10 minute case digest at the backseat of my car. If push comes to shove where all else been taken into account and matters must be confronted, means I'll have to rely on this piece of crap in the recitation coming within an hour. Look at that, it's not even done due to time constraint. It need not be. The ruling is in my head.
Alright here we go, plaintif G. MARTINI Ltd. is a Trading Company, alright? MACONDRAY & Co., respondent in this case is an Australian Steamship Company.. meaning we have a common carrier here which is a shipping company. Martini had to transport 219 packages of chemical products from Manila to Japan. So, port of loading –Manila, port of destination – Kobe, Japan.
It was a Friday morning when Martini applied to Macondray for a space on the steamship called Eastern. (Please be noted, steamships are obsolete, they are propelled by coal energy, like the RMS Titanic remember? They heap coal at the inner bottom of the ship to produce steam to run the ship’s engine. The shipping industry have evolved since the early 19th century so practically it’s of no use today. This is ahmm.. this case is dated 1916 so there you are, that explains everything, this case actually happened 4 years after the sinking of the Titanic).
So the ship captain received the Shipping Order (don’t pay too much attention to it, its not the Bill of Lading, its ahm.. its just a slip issued by the company which mainly constitutes extending authority to the one in-charge of the ship to receive the cargo aboard, it’s more like a job order or something) Once the Shipping Order is issued, shipment starts to be loaded, and then the ship issues something what you call a Mate’s Receipt to the shipper, which in this case is Martini. The thing was, the receipt did not reach Martini’s hand till Monday night. BTW - The receipt had a stamp on its face that said “ON DECK AT SHIPPER’S RISK”. Which confirmed the ship captain had decided to merely carry it on deck rather than under the hatches as was requested.
But beforehand the day of his application on Friday, Martini expressed desire to the Macondray company if he could obtain the Bill of Lading on Saturday morning in order that he might negotiate them at the bank. So a request was made by Martini to Macondray for the delivery of the Bill of Lading on that day. But to effectuate this, Martini was required to enter into a written obligation, something you call a Letter of Guarantee. So in other words we established 3 things here. 1. That it isn’t Martini who was paying for the shipment but the bank. 2. That the cargo is being loaded on the ship while Martini was simultaneously taking care of shipment and bank documents. 3. Saturday during the 1900s unlike today was a bank day. (Geez I didn’t know that, so Saturday is still work huh? bummer)
So in conformity with the purpose of this document the Bills of Lading were issued, and the negotiable copies were on the same day negotiated at the bank by plaintiff Martini for 90% of the invoice value of the goods. So this means it didn't actually reached Saturday when Martini got what he asked for, he got it even earlier, So clearly these are two parties that comply right away to each other's documentary need. But of course there's a defect somewhere, had there not then we're not looking at a legal case here.
Now here comes the controversy. The Bills of Lading were issued right? Right just in time when the shipper needed it. But the thing was, the Bills of Lading contained on their face the conspicuously stenciled words “ON DECK AT SHIPPER’S RISK.”
So Martini upon seeing the words all at once called the attention of S. Codina, the Martini employee whose primary duty was to attend to all shipments of merchandise and cargo related documents.
And so through Codina, Martini sent Macondray a letter stating the following :
“It is the prevailing practice that, whenever a cargo is being carried on deck, ship owners or agents give advice of it to shippers previous to shipment taking place, and obtain their consent to it. If we had been advised of it, shipment would not have been effected by us. We regret very much this occurrence, but you will understand that in view of your having acted in this case on your own responsibility, we shall have to hold you amenable for any consequences that may be caused from your action.” (hadnt it occured to you.. Old English sounds and even looks more compelling especially when it's used in law)
So Macondray called Codina by phone saying they:
“..could not accept the cargo for transportation otherwise (meaning under the hatches) than on deck and that if Martini were dissatisfied, the cargo could be discharged from the ship.”
You must understand, the content of cargo were CHEMICALS. I dunno but maybe having found out from the Shipping Order and from ocular inspection that such cargo constitute hazardous material. So carrying it under hatches renders a greater risk on the ship itself than on deck on open air, should it cause fire or anything else for that matter.
So it's clear, Macondray opted to observe ORDINARY DILIGENCE (Diligence of a Good Father of a Family) with regard to the Martini cargo, other than the usual EXTRA-ORDINARY DILIGENCE basically required of all common carriers.
So it's clear, Macondray opted to observe ORDINARY DILIGENCE (Diligence of a Good Father of a Family) with regard to the Martini cargo, other than the usual EXTRA-ORDINARY DILIGENCE basically required of all common carriers.
Well there is substantial conformity with respect to the time of the conversation by telephone and the nature of the message which Macondray & Co. intended to convey. But in conclusion, it seems clear enough that, although Martini would have greatly preferred for the cargo to be carried under the hatches, they nevertheless consented for it to go on deck.
So the goods were embarked at Manila on the steamship Eastern and were carried to Kobe on the deck of that ship. Upon arrival at the port of destination they found out that the chemicals which comprised the shipment had suffered damage from the effects of both fresh and salt water.
Therefore an action was instituted by Martini to recover the amount of the damage (I think I should add here ‘thereby occasioned’ so It’d look something like I’m in the 1912 or somethin’…. I’M THE KING OF THE WOORRLD!!)
The Court of First Instance of Manila’s judgment was rendered in favor of Martini for the sum of P34,997.56, with interest from 24 March 1917, and costs of the proceeding.
ISSUE:
Do you think Macondray should be held liable?
HELD:
NO. (I'm pasting from BerneGuerrero's Haystack now)
1. Damage was caused by water
The damage was caused by water, either falling in the form of rain or splashing aboard by the action of wind and waves.
2. Paragraph 19 of the several bills of lading issued for transportation of the cargo
Paragraph 19 of the several bills of lading issued for transportation of the cargo reads “(19) Goodssigned for on this bill of lading as carried on deck are entirely at shipper’s risk, whether carried on deck or under hatches, and the steamer is not liable for any loss or damage from any cause whatever.“
3. Shipper ordinarily produce mate’s receipt to agents of ship’s company
Ordinarily the shipper is supposed to produce the mate’s receipt to the agents of the ship’s company, who thereupon issue the bill of lading to the shipper. When, however, the shipper desires to procure the bill of lading before he obtains the mate’s receipt, it is customary for him to enter into a written obligation, binding himself, among other things, to abide by the terms of the mate’s receipt. Herein,
4. Contents of the “Letter of Guarantee”
The “Letter of Guarantee” dated 16 September 1916, is of the tenor “In consideration of your signing us clean B/L for the undermentioned cargo per above steamer to be shipped on or under deck at ship’s option, for Kobe without production of the mate’s receipt, we hereby guarantee to hold you free from any responsibility by your doing so, and for any expense should the whole or part of the cargo be shut out, or otherwise, and to hand you said mate’s receipt as soon as it reaches us and to abide by all clauses and notations on the same.”
5. Martini did nothing to discharge cargo
In order to get the cargo off certain formalities were necessary which could not be accomplished, as for instance, the return of the mate’s receipt (which had not yet come to Martini’s hands), the securing of a permit from the customs authorities, and the securing of an order of discharge from the steamship company. In view of the fact that Martini did nothing whatever looking towards the discharge of the cargo, not even so much as to notify Macondray that the cargo must come off, the proof relative to the practicability of discharge is inconclusive. If Martini had promptly informed Macondray of their resolve to have the cargo discharged, and the latter had nevertheless permitted the ship to sail without discharging it, there would have been some ground for Martini’s contention that its consent had not been given for the goods to be carried on deck. Needless to say the Court attached no weight to the statement of Codina that he was unable to get Macondray by telephone in order to communicate directions for the discharge of the cargo.
1. Damage was caused by water
The damage was caused by water, either falling in the form of rain or splashing aboard by the action of wind and waves.
2. Paragraph 19 of the several bills of lading issued for transportation of the cargo
Paragraph 19 of the several bills of lading issued for transportation of the cargo reads “(19) Goodssigned for on this bill of lading as carried on deck are entirely at shipper’s risk, whether carried on deck or under hatches, and the steamer is not liable for any loss or damage from any cause whatever.“
3. Shipper ordinarily produce mate’s receipt to agents of ship’s company
Ordinarily the shipper is supposed to produce the mate’s receipt to the agents of the ship’s company, who thereupon issue the bill of lading to the shipper. When, however, the shipper desires to procure the bill of lading before he obtains the mate’s receipt, it is customary for him to enter into a written obligation, binding himself, among other things, to abide by the terms of the mate’s receipt. Herein,
4. Contents of the “Letter of Guarantee”
The “Letter of Guarantee” dated 16 September 1916, is of the tenor “In consideration of your signing us clean B/L for the undermentioned cargo per above steamer to be shipped on or under deck at ship’s option, for Kobe without production of the mate’s receipt, we hereby guarantee to hold you free from any responsibility by your doing so, and for any expense should the whole or part of the cargo be shut out, or otherwise, and to hand you said mate’s receipt as soon as it reaches us and to abide by all clauses and notations on the same.”
5. Martini did nothing to discharge cargo
In order to get the cargo off certain formalities were necessary which could not be accomplished, as for instance, the return of the mate’s receipt (which had not yet come to Martini’s hands), the securing of a permit from the customs authorities, and the securing of an order of discharge from the steamship company. In view of the fact that Martini did nothing whatever looking towards the discharge of the cargo, not even so much as to notify Macondray that the cargo must come off, the proof relative to the practicability of discharge is inconclusive. If Martini had promptly informed Macondray of their resolve to have the cargo discharged, and the latter had nevertheless permitted the ship to sail without discharging it, there would have been some ground for Martini’s contention that its consent had not been given for the goods to be carried on deck. Needless to say the Court attached no weight to the statement of Codina that he was unable to get Macondray by telephone in order to communicate directions for the discharge of the cargo.
(The rest you can get it from there, here's the link, just hunt it down)
https://berneguerrero.files.wordpress.com/2012/08/2004hs198_transpo.pdf
https://berneguerrero.files.wordpress.com/2012/08/2004hs198_transpo.pdf
