Maersk Line vs Court of Appeals Case Digest Essay Example

Court. While Eli Lilly withdrew their cross claim, the Court still held Maersk liable, which was affirmed with modifications by CA. Therefore, there is a cause of action against Maersk Line as an original party, and Win Castillo is entitled to damages resulting from the delayed shipment.

It is undeniable that the provision located at the end of the bill of lading, consisting of fine print, is a contract of adhesion. Such contracts are typically deemed null and void due to the fact that they are created and formulated by only one party, which is typically the carrier. In these types of contracts, almost all of the provisions are prepared solely by the carrier, while the other party's participation is limited to signing their signature. Therefore, they are deemed "adhesion" contracts. Petitioner Maersk Line cannot argue that the dismissal of the complaint against Eli Lilly benefited them since they were an original party defendant implicated in the delayed shipment.

Although bills of lading are not completely prohibited, they are considered contracts. If an individual agrees to the terms of the contract, they have the option to reject it entirely. By agreeing to the contract, they give their consent (Magellan Manufacturing Marketing Corporation v. Court of Appeals, et al., 201 SCRA 102 [1991]). Magellan (supra) determined that a bill of lading serves as both proof of receipt and a contract for the transportation and delivery of specified goods.

The

bill of lading

serves as a

contract

that identifies the parties involved, including the

consignee

, and details the

route, destination, and freight rates.

It also outlines the respective rights and obligations of

all parties concerned, and is legally binding unless its terms contravene established law, morality, good customs, public policy or public order. Typically, once delivered and accepted by the shipper - barring fraud or misconduct - it's expected that they are aware of its provisions and will be bound by them even if not fully read. However this only applies if it doesn't result in an unreasonable situation like in this present case where a disputed clause grants carrier control over shipment arrival date.

The Petitioner contends that they are not accountable for any delays as there was no arrangement made concerning delivery dates and the Bill of Lading specifies that the carrier is not liable for the arrival time of goods at the destination. Although common carriers have no legal obligation to transport or deliver merchandise, they are expected to deliver shipments within a reasonable timeframe if there were no prior agreements made regarding specific delivery dates.

Even though there was no specific agreement for the shipment's arrival date, the petitioner knew when it was expected to arrive based on the bill of lading. Thus, creating an additional contract for this purpose is redundant. Nonetheless, the court considered the delivery delay unreasonable and held Maersk Line accountable.

As per the bill of lading, the shipment was supposed to reach Manila by April 3, 1977. Although there was no specific agreement regarding the arrival date, the petitioner had knowledge of the mentioned date in the bill. Unfortunately, there was an unreasonable delay in delivering the goods for a period of two months and seven days without any explanation provided by the petitioner.

Breaching the contract of carriage is a

sign of bad faith and Maersk Line has been found responsible for doing so.