Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 122 views

    Iron Bulk Shipping Phils Inc. vs. Remington Industrial Sales Corp

    Uploaded by

    Naiza Mae R. Binayao
    Remington Industrial Sales Corporation ordered 194 packages of hot rolled steel sheets from Wangs Company, Inc. that were delivered by ship and found to be wet and rusted upon arrival in the Philippines. Remington filed a claim that was denied, so they sued for collection. Both lower and appellate courts ruled in Remington's favor. The petitioner argues that the bill of lading cannot be used to indicate the cargo's condition upon loading. However, the court ruled that the bill of lading is valid as both a receipt and contract, and the carrier is bound by its recitals since it did not note any exceptions when accepting the cargo. Therefore, the Court of Appeals did not err in relying on the bill of lading.

    Copyright:

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

    Iron Bulk Shipping Phils Inc. vs. Remington Industrial Sales Corp

    Uploaded by

    Naiza Mae R. Binayao
    122 views2 pages
    Remington Industrial Sales Corporation ordered 194 packages of hot rolled steel sheets from Wangs Company, Inc. that were delivered by ship and found to be wet and rusted upon arrival in the Philippines. Remington filed a claim that was denied, so they sued for collection. Both lower and appellate courts ruled in Remington's favor. The petitioner argues that the bill of lading cannot be used to indicate the cargo's condition upon loading. However, the court ruled that the bill of lading is valid as both a receipt and contract, and the carrier is bound by its recitals since it did not note any exceptions when accepting the cargo. Therefore, the Court of Appeals did not err in relying on the bill of lading.

    Original Title

    Case resesrch

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Remington Industrial Sales Corporation ordered 194 packages of hot rolled steel sheets from Wangs Company, Inc. that were delivered by ship and found to be wet and rusted upon arrival in the Philippines. Remington filed a claim that was denied, so they sued for collection. Both lower and appellate courts ruled in Remington's favor. The petitioner argues that the bill of lading cannot be used to indicate the cargo's condition upon loading. However, the court ruled that the bill of lading is valid as both a receipt and contract, and the carrier is bound by its recitals since it did not note any exceptions when accepting the cargo. Therefore, the Court of Appeals did not err in relying on the bill of lading.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    122 views2 pages

    Iron Bulk Shipping Phils Inc. vs. Remington Industrial Sales Corp

    Uploaded by

    Naiza Mae R. Binayao
    Remington Industrial Sales Corporation ordered 194 packages of hot rolled steel sheets from Wangs Company, Inc. that were delivered by ship and found to be wet and rusted upon arrival in the Philippines. Remington filed a claim that was denied, so they sued for collection. Both lower and appellate courts ruled in Remington's favor. The petitioner argues that the bill of lading cannot be used to indicate the cargo's condition upon loading. However, the court ruled that the bill of lading is valid as both a receipt and contract, and the carrier is bound by its recitals since it did not note any exceptions when accepting the cargo. Therefore, the Court of Appeals did not err in relying on the bill of lading.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    Iron Bulk Shipping Phils Inc.

    vs.
    Remington Industrial Sales Corp

    Facts:
    Plaintiff Remington Industrial Sales Corporation (hereafter Remington for short) ordered
    from defendant Wangs Company, Inc. (hereafter Wangs for short) 194 packages of hot
    rolled steel sheets, weighing 686.565 metric tons, with a total value of $219,380.00..
    Wangs forwarded the order to its supplier, Burwill (Agencies) Ltd., in Hongkong. On or
    about November 26, 1991, the packages were loaded on board the vessel MV ‘Indian
    Reliance’ at the Port of Gdynia, Poland, for transportation to the Philippines, under Bill
    of Lading No. 27 . The vessel’s owner/charterer is represented in the Philippines by
    defendant Iron Bulk Iron.

    Upon arrival and discharge of the cargo, the sheets were found to be wet and  with rust
    extending to 50 to 60% of each sheet. Plaintiff filed formal claims for loss amounting to
    P544,875.17 with Pioneer, Iron Bulk, Manila Port Services, Inc. (MPS) and ESE
    Brokerage Corporation (ESE). No one honored such claims.
    AS s recourse, Remington filed an action for collection. Both lower and appellate courts
    ruled in favor of Remington. Thus, this petition.

    Issue: Whther or not Court of Appeals erred in relying on the pro forma Bills of Lading to
    establish the condition of the cargo upon landing .

    Ruling:
    No. There is no merit to petitioner’s contention that the Bill of Lading covering the
    subject cargo cannot be relied upon to indicate the condition of the cargo upon loading.
    It is settled that a bill of lading has a two-fold character. In Phoenix Assurance Co., Ltd.
    vs. United States Lines, we held that:

    [A] bill of lading operates both as a receipt and as a contract. It is a receipt for the goods
    shipped and a contract to transport and deliver the same as therein stipulated. As a
    receipt, it recites the date and place of shipment, describes the goods as to quantity,
    weight, dimensions, identification marks and condition, quality and value. As a contract,
    it names the contracting parties, which include the consignee, fixes the route,
    destination, and freight rate or charges, and stipulates the rights and obligations
    assumed by the parties.

    We agree with the Court of Appeals that far from contradicting the recitals contained in
    the said bill, petitioner’s own evidence shows that the cargo covered by the subject bill
    of lading, although it was partially wet and covered with rust was, nevertheless, found to
    be in a “fair, usually accepted condition” when it was accepted for shipment.12

    The fact that the issued bill of lading is pro forma is of no moment. If the bill of lading is
    not truly reflective of the true condition of the cargo at the time of loading to the effect
    that the said cargo was indeed in a damaged state, the carrier could have refused to
    accept it, or at the least, made a marginal note in the bill of lading indicating the true
    condition of the merchandise. But it did not. On the contrary, it accepted the subject
    cargo and even agreed to the issuance of a clean bill of lading without taking any
    exceptions with respect to the recitals contained therein. Since the carrier failed to
    annotate in the bill of lading the alleged damaged condition of the cargo when it was
    loaded, said carrier and the petitioner, as its representative, are bound by the
    description appearing therein and they are now estopped from denying the contents of
    the said bill.

    You might also like