[Basic details of the case] On December 28, 2014, Ningbo Mengheng Industry and Trade Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “Mengheng”) loaded a container of figured cloth at the Port of Ningbo, and obtained the bill of lading from Maersk issued by the agent. The port of discharge set forth in the bill of lading was Port of Cotonou, Benin, Africa. After the goods were shipped out, through inquiry, Mengheng got to know that the disputed container was unloaded at the Port of Douala, Cameroon in March 11, 2015. As the sales of the goods was seasonal, Mengheng required Moller-Maersk A/S (hereinafter referred to as “Maersk”) repeatedly to ship the goods to the destination port as soon as possible. As required by Maersk, Mengheng provided the commercial invoice of the goods for customs clearance at the Port of Douala. The container was then shipped again and arrived at the destination Port of Cotonou on May 29 of the same year. Due to certain investigation conducted by the authority of the destination port, the container was shipped to Lagos of Nigeria, a neighboring country, for customs clearance. The goods were eventually picked up by the consignee on June 25 of the same year. According to the correspondence emails between Mengheng and the consignee: The disputed figured cloth of the colors and patterns were purchased by the consignee for the local selling season in March 2015, and the June of the year was another selling season for figured cloth (yet for different colors and patterns). As consulted with the consignee, Mengheng finally covered 50% of the payment for the goods. Mengheng required Maersk to be liable for half of its loss in payment for the goods, for the reason that Maersk shipped the goods to a wrong destination port, so that the selling season was missed. Before the case was submitted to the Court, Maersk had already refunded the sea freight for the disputed container to Mengheng in full.

[Main ideas of adjudication] Through trial, the Ningbo Maritime Court found that: Mengheng was the consignor of the disputed container, and had the right to require the carrier Maersk to perform the obligation to ship the goods properly and carefully. As there was a dispute between both parties arising from the performance of the contract, the plaintiff definitely had the just claim, and the consignee did not file claims against Maersk for the same disputed fact. Thus, there was no multiplicity of actions. Normally, it would take around 2 months for the container to be shipped from the Port of Ningbo to the Port of Cotonou by sea. Before arriving at the destination port, the disputed container stayed at the Port of Douala for over 2 months, and could be loaded again only upon customs clearance, which was not the normal process for the transfer of a container. It was caused by Maersk’s mistakenly taking the Port of Douala as the port of discharge, unloading the goods and carrying out customs declaration. Though the disputed container was delivered 5 months later and the consequence was the delayed delivery of the goods, as there was no specific agreement between the consignor and the consignee on the time of delivery of the goods, the disputed transportation was not in line with the late delivery prescribed under Article 50 of the Maritime Law. Thus, in this case, it should be found that Maersk had violated the carrier’s obligation to handle the goods properly prescribed by Article 48 of the Maritime Law, and should assume the corresponding liability for breach of contract. After the first selling season was missed due to the delayed delivery of the goods to the port, the second selling season was missed due to the delayed customs clearance at the destination port. According to the repeated negotiation between Mengheng and the consignee on the payment for goods after the goods missed the selling seasons, it was confirmed that Mengheng had only recovered half of the payment, and the depreciation rate of the goods was 50%. Considering the depreciation of the goods, the loss mitigation obligation assumed by Mengheng and the risk of delay that should be foreseen by Maersk, it was found that Maersk should be make compensation to Mengheng that equaled 25% of the goods value, as well as the freight of the disputed goods, due to the delayed delivery of the goods caused by Maersk’s breach of contract, and Maersk should not be entitled to liability limitation for it. Maersk was not satisfied with the judgment and filed an appeal. The Zhejiang Provincial Higher People’s Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the original judgment.

[Typical significance] Under the general background of the faster and more accurate liner transportation required by international trade, the predictability of shipping risks and the significant improvement of shipping technology, it is necessary to re-weigh the interests of both the ship owner and the cargo owner in terms of delayed delivery, and establish corresponding adjudication rules. In this case, on the basis of accurately grasping the spirit of the provisions of the Maritime Law on the carrier’s liabilities, a adjudication rule was established: In the event that the carrier delivers the goods beyond the reasonable time due to its own fault, and the consignor shall have the right to bring a lawsuit against the carrier after suffering losses in the value of goods. The carrier shall not claim exemption from liabilities in accordance with Article 82 of the Maritime Law, where the carrier will not assume any liability if the consignee does not inform it in writing of the claims within sixty days after the delivery of goods. When there is a causal relationship between the carrier’s violation of the basic obligation to properly manage the goods and the loss of the goods value, the carrier shall assume the corresponding liability for breach of contract. In this case, the container was unloaded at a wrong port, so that its delivery at the destination port was delayed, which was different from usual delayed delivery. Thus, the defendant Maersk’s claim that the case should be handled in accordance with the common practice in the industry of freight compensation lacked factual basis. The carrier’s fault and liability had been finally found out in a reasonable manner, so that the legitimate rights and interests of domestic exporters were protected with good social effect.