Adv. Gill Nadel, Adv. Omer Wagner.
Recently, a verdict was handed down by the court for small claims in Tiberias, which obliged an international forwarder to compensate an importer of speakers from Chinese, since the goods got wet and were damaged.
The court rejected the forwarder’s claims that the importer should have insured the goods and since he did not, this exempts the forwarder from liability.
The Facts of The Case and claims of the parties:
Gad Ben Shmuel (the importer) ordered speakers from China and did so using the services of a forwarder company named- Easyli Logistics Services. The speakers arrived wet and so the importer filed a claim against the forwarder requesting compensation of 17,000 NIS.
The importer claimed that he paid the forwarder the actual price of the speakers, including import taxes and expenses for the shipment and asked the court to find the forwarder liable for the damages.
The forwarder claimed that the importer was negligent as he did not arrange insurance for the imported goods and he has no one to blame but himself. He also claimed that the order was not made by him but by “The House of Music”.
The Court’s Verdict:
The court rejected the claim of the forwarder regarding the identity of the plaintiff and set that The House of Music was the name of the importer’s business.
The court was presented with an advertisement with the name of the forwarder in which it was written that the forwarder provides shipment and transport services, until they reach their destination in Israel.
In light of this and of the order form, the court decided that a contract was in fact signed between the parties, through which the importer paid the forwarder full payment for the speakers, including the VAT, purchase tax, port expenses, shipment, land transport and commission.
The court ruled that the evidence showed that the forwarder committed to transfering the speakers in containers of a marine forwarder, but a picture presented showed that the container cracked and split, allowing water to enter and damage the containers, which eventually caused damage to the speakers, which caused them to be useless
The court ruled that the forwarder breached his obligation to deliver the cargo in fit condition to the importer, as the forwarder chose the marine forwarder himself and charged the importer for it.
The court decided that the fact that the importer did not insure the cargo had nothing to do with the liability of the forwarder in this case.
Despite this, the court obliged the forwarder with compensation of only 6000 NIS, since photos of the damaged speakers were not presented to the court but instead only photos of wet cartons were -therefore it can be assumed that only some of the speakers were damaged, and not all of them (if otherwise wasn’t proved).
And so the forwarder was obliged to pay the importer damages in a sum of 6000 NIS along with 400 NIS for court expenses.
(S.C. (Small Claims Tiberias) 38824-01-10 BEN Shmuel Vs. Easyli Logistic Services, verdict handed from 2/2/11, Judge R. Nadaf , the sides were not represented by a lawyer).
Comments and Conclusion:
In the international trade, it is customary to distinguish between international forwarders who regulate the transport alone, and forwarders who take on themselves a more comprehensive obligation to supervise and ensure the safety of the cargo until it reaches the customer.
Usually, the courts examine in each and every case the terms of the written agreement between the forwarder and the customer, in order to decide the extent of the forwarder's obligation towards the customer.
For example in a verdict from a few years ago (C.F. (Civil File)-- (Tel-Aviv Magistrate) 14746/05 Fritz Companies Israel Ltd. Vs. Goldman International Trade Ltd. Et Al. - 2007) the court noted that if it can not be clearly understood from quotes and agreements between the forwarder and his customer that the forwarder was responsible only for arranging transport, then it should be concluded that he gave a more comprehensive service to the customer.
In the verdict regarding Ben Shmuel, it appears that the court did not make such a distinction as to whether or not the forwarder was comprehensively liable or not, however it is likely that since the forwarder charged the importer a high sum for the speakers and for VAT, purchase tax, port expenses, transport and transport in Israel, his duty was comprehensive and was he wasn’t responsible only for transport.
עדכוני מכס ורגולציה
