Business law

[Basic Facts]

In early 2020, plaintiff Jiangsu [REDACTED] Glass Company and defendant Qingdao [REDACTED] Logistics Company entered into an International Freight Forwarding Agreement. According to the agreement, when issuing a bill of lading or any other transport document, Qingdao [REDACTED] Logistics Company should assume the responsibility of a carrier. After the agreement was signed, Jiangsu [REDACTED] Glass Company exported tempered glass and plastic trims to a Mexican company through its agency, with an agreed total price of 140,545.88 US dollars. Afterwards, Jiangsu [REDACTED] Glass Company issued a Power of Attorney to Qingdao [REDACTED] Logistics Company through its agency, appointing Qingdao [REDACTED] Logistics Company to transport the goods involved in the case to Mexico. Qingdao [REDACTED] Logistics Company booked a space for shipment with [REDACTED] Shipping Company and appointed a customs brokerage company to handle the export clearance formalities for the goods. In April 2020, Qingdao [REDACTED] Logistics Company issued a bill of lading for multimodal transport, indicating that the port of loading was Lianyungang, the port of discharge and place of delivery were Apodaca, Mexico, the mode of transport was CY-DOOR (container yard to door). It charged Jiangsu [REDACTED] Glass Company a sea freight of 15,400 US dollars. On May 20, 2020, the goods involved in the case arrived in Mexico by sea. During the subsequent railway transport, the train derailed, causing damage to all the goods in the five containers. Jiangsu [REDACTED] Glass Company sued, requesting that Qingdao [REDACTED] Logistics Company bear full compensatory liability for damage to the goods and shipping costs.

[Judgment]

The Nanjing Maritime Court held upon trial that as the two parties in this case clearly agreed in the International Freight Forwarding Agreement that Chinese law would apply, this case should be tried under Chinese law. According to the relevant provisions of the Maritime Law, Qingdao [REDACTED] Logistics Company, as a multimodal transport operator, should bear liability for compensation to the consignor for loss of or damage to goods during transport. The goods involved in the case were damaged during rail transport. The compensation liability of Qingdao [REDACTED] Logistics Company and liability limit should be governed by the civil and commercial laws of Mexico governing rail transport according to Article 105 of the Maritime Law. According to the findings of [REDACTED] Foreign Law Ascertainment Research Center, the compensation liability of Qingdao [REDACTED] Logistics Company and the liability limit should, in accordance with the provisions of Article 52 of Mexico's Law on the Implementation of Railway Services, be calculated based on the current general minimum wage of 15 days in the Federal Capital District per metric ton from the date when Jiangsu [REDACTED] Glass Company filed a claim for compensation. Based on the foregoing, the Nanjing Maritime Court adjudged Qingdao [REDACTED] Logistics Company to pay 19,662.93 yuan with interest to Jiangsu [REDACTED] Glass Company. After the first-instance judgment, both parties accepted the judgment and pursued no further legal proceedings.                        

 [Significance]

This case involves a multimodal transport contract dispute. Although the parties agreed to apply the laws of the People's Republic of China, the damage to the goods in the case occurred in the railway transport section in Mexico. In accordance with the provisiosn of Article 105 of the Maritime Law, the compensation liability of the multimodal transport operator and the liability limit should be determined according to the relevant laws of Mexico. The maritime court commissioned the [REDACTED] Foreign Law Ascertainment Research Center to clarify the laws of Mexico involved in the case. In order to improve the efficiency of ascertaining foreign laws and reduce repetition, the maritime court requested both parties to determine the scope of ascertaining foreign laws. First, it obtained and summarized the foreign legal issues that needed to be ascertained from both parties, including what law was applicable to this case under Mexican law, the path to and logic of applying this law, the specific provisions on the carrier's compensatory liability and liability limit, and whether there were prerequisites for and exceptions to the liability limit. The maritime court ascertained the foreign law through a professional ascertainment agency, and both parties had no objection to the content of the ascertainment. This served as a good example of the accurate ascertainment and application of foreign laws.