|
|
|
Case on Dispute over Compensation under Contract of Air Transport between Hungarian Kellett Industrial Trade and Scientific and Technological Development Stock Company and Huali Air Transport Co., Ltd. Tianjin Branch (Case on Dispute over Compensation under Contract of Air Transport)
|
|
匈牙利凯雷特工业贸易和科技开发股份公司诉华力空运有限公司天津分公司航空运输合同赔偿纠纷案
|
|
【法宝引证码】
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Case on Dispute over Compensation under Contract of Air Transport between Hungarian Kellett Industrial Trade and Scientific and Technological Development Stock Company and Huali Air Transport Co., Ltd. Tianjin Branch
No. 2 Intermediate People's Court of Tianjin Municipality
Civil Judgment
Initial Judgment No. 44 [1996] of Economic Tribunal 1
Basic Facts
Plaintiff: Hungarian Kellett Industrial Trade and Scientific and Technological Development Stock Company; domiciled at No. 20, Jizela Street, District No. 14, Budapest City, Hungary.
Legal Representative: Chen Baoyu, general manager.
Authorized Agent: Chen Yongmin, male, retired employee of China Ferrous Metal Materials North China Company.
Authorized Agent: Li Guanglin, lawyer from Tianjin Zhonghe Law Firm (former Tianjin Pacific Law Firm).
Defendant: Huali Air Transport Co., Ltd. Tianjin Branch. domiciled at No. 76, Qiwei Road, Hedong District, Tianjin Municipality.
Responsible Person: Zhang Xueren, chairman of the board.
Authorized Agent: Wang Fulin, cadre of Huali Air Transport Co., Ltd.
Authorized Agent: Sun Juan, lawyer from Tianjin Financial Law Firm.
The Third Party: Air China, domiciled at Capital International Airport of Beijing Municipality.
Legal Representative: Yin Wenlong, president.
Authorized Agent: Tang Mingyi, cadre of the Legal Affairs Department of Air China.
Authorized Agent: Lu Yanfang, cadre of the Legal Affairs Department of Air China.
Hungarian Kellett Industrial Trade and Scientific and Technological Development Stock Company (hereinafter referred to as Kellett Company), the plaintiff, brought a lawsuit against Huali Air Transport Co., Ltd. Tianjin Branch (hereinafter referred to as Tianjin Company), the defendant, and Air China, the third party, the case is about the dispute over compensation under contract of air transport. This court accepted the case, then formed a collegial panel in accordance with the law, and also tried the case publicly. Kellett Company's legal representative Chen Baoyu and his authorized agents Chen Yongmin and Li Guanglin, Tianjin Company's authorized agents Sun Juan and Wang Yingbo (former authorized agent) and Air China's authorized agents Tang Mingyi and Lu Yanfang all participated in the litigation. The trial of this case has now been finalized.
Kellett Company claimed: on July 23, 1995, Kellett Company and Tianjin Electronic Instruments & Meters United Import and Export Company (hereinafter referred to as Electronic Instruments & Meters Company) concluded a sales contract, stipulating that Electronic Instruments & Meters Company should supply Kellett Company with a batch of handicrafts, which should be delivered to the buyer on August 25, 1995, with the term of delivery to be FOB. On August 23, 1995, Electronic Instruments & Meters Company went through the formalities of consigning the goods to Tianjin Company as stipulated. The serial number of the batch of goods was 999-87776776. Due to Tianjin Company's fault in work and errors in transport dispatch, the batch of goods did not arrive at Budapest within the normal period of international air transport, but waited on demurrage for almost one month. The batch of goods was affected by rain due to inappropriate storage, and all of the goods were immersed by water to different extents. Since Air China was Tianjin Company's principal, who should be responsible for Tianjin Company's act of agency. Therefore, Kellett Company requested the court to rule in accordance with the law that Tianjin Company and Air China should, in accordance with the relevant provisions in Warsaw Convention, compensate Kellett Company for the economic losses by calculating the amount of 6090 kilograms at 250 Francs per kilogram, with the total amount at 121800 USD. In order to support the above compensation amount, Kellett Company asserted the following direct economic losses to the court:
| | 匈牙利凯雷特工业贸易和科技开发股份公司诉华力空运有限公司天津分公司航空运输合同赔偿纠纷案
天津市第二中级人民法院
民事判决书
(1996)二中经一初字第44号
基本案情
原告 匈牙利凯雷特工业贸易和科技开发股份公司。
法定代表人 陈保育，总经理。
委托代理人 陈永敏。
委托代理人 李广林，天津市众和律师事务所(原天津市太平洋律师事务所)律师。
被告 华力空运有限公司天津分公司。
负责人 张学仁，董事长。
委托代理人 王富林，华力空运有限公司干部。
委托代理人 孙娟，天津市金融律师事务所律师。
第三人 中国国际航空公司。
法定代表人 殷文龙，总裁。
委托代理人 唐明毅，中国国际航空公司法律事务处干部。
委托代理人 吕艳芳，中国国际航空公司法律事务处干部。
原告匈牙利凯雷特工业贸易和科技开发股份公司(下称凯雷特公司)与被告华力空运有限公司天津分公司(下称天津公司)、第三人中国国际航空公司(下称国航公司)航空运输合同赔偿纠纷一案，本院受理后，依法组成合议庭，公开开庭进行了审理，原告凯雷特公司的法定代表人陈保育及其委托代理人陈永敏、李广林，被告天津公司的委托代理人孙娟、王英波(原委托代理人)以及第三人国航公司的委托代理人唐明毅、吕艳芳到庭参加诉讼。本案现已审理终结。
原告凯雷特公司诉称：1995年7月23日，原告与天津电子仪表联合进出口公司(下称电子仪表公司)签订一份销售合同，约定由电子仪表公司供给原告工艺品一批。定于1995年8月25日运交买方，交货条件FOB。1995年8月23日，电子仪表公司按约向被告天津公司办理货物的托运手续。该批货物运单编号为999－87776776。由于被告天津公司的工作失误及航运调度错误，该批货物未能按国际航空运输的正常运期到达布达佩斯，滞期近一个月之久。该批货物因照管不善，受雨水侵袭，全部货物不同程度地遭到水浸。由于第三人国航公司是被告天津公司的委托人，应对天津公司的代理行为负责。请求法院依法判令被告天津公司及第三人国航公司对原告的经济损失按华沙条约有关规定，按每公斤250法郎、6090公斤计算赔偿额，合计121800美元。为支持上列赔偿额，原告向法院提出如下直接经济损失：
|
1. the loss of goods for the goods which could not be sold, which were thrown or were forced to be delivered at half price: 3268 USD in flower baskets; 3928.123 USD in handbags, totaled 7196 USD;
| | 1．因货物不能销售、扔掉或被迫减半价交货的货物损失：花蓝为3268美元；手包为3928．123美元，共计7196美元；
|
2. the sales loss for the goods which could not be sold, which were thrown or were forced to be delivered at half price: 8132 USD in flower baskets, 4190 USD in handbags, totaled 12322 USD;
| | 2．因货物不能销售扔掉或被迫减半价交货的销售损失：花蓝为8132美元，手包为4190美元，共计12322美元；
|
3. the fine paid to the next purchaser for being short of goods due to failure of delivery was 5244 USD ;
| | 3．因货物不能交货，向下家货物购买人支付的货物短缺罚款为5244美元；
|
4. the fine paid to the next purchaser according to the agreement due to delay of delivery was 65550 USD ×10%/day×6 days = 39330 USD;
| | 4．因货物延误，向下家货物购买人按协议支付的货物延误罚款为65550美元×10％/天×6天＝39330美元；
|
5. the compensation of sales loss paid to the next purchaser due to loss of goods and delay of delivery was 39064 USD;
| | 5．因货损和延误向下家货物购买人所作的销售损失赔付为39064美元；
|
6. the freight loss (including the freight totaled 21454.63 USD, if each flower basket or handbag was priced at 0.5 USD, altogether 12851 were thrown.) was 12851 pieces ×0.5 USD/piece = 6425.5 USD;
| | 6．运费损失(其中运费总额为21454．63美元，按每个花蓝或手包的运价为0．5美元计，因总共扔掉了12851件)为12851件×0．5美元/件＝6425．5美元；
|
7. the customs duty already paid for the goods thrown later (by multiplying the total amount of the customs duty with the percentage of the thrown goods among all the goods, which was 29.9%) was 2992676 Forints ×29.9% = 894810 Forints, approximately 6458.4 USD;
| | 7．为货损扔掉的货物而白花的关税(用关税总额乘以扔掉货物占全部货物的百分比29．9％得)2992676福林×29．9％＝894810福林，约合6458．4美元；
|
8. other extra expenses due to delay of delivery and loss of goods: (1) the fee for settling the goods was 8800 Forints, approximately 64 USD; (2) the warehouse storage fee was 300000 Forints, approximately 2165 USD; (3) the fee for checking and moving the goods was 185 USD; (4) the fee for materials of secondary package was 617 USD; the above fees totaled 3031 USD;
| | 8．因货物延误及货损而产生的其他额外支出：(1)理货手续费8800福林，约合64美元；(2)仓库保管费300000福林，约合2165美元；(3)清点搬运费185美元；(4)二次包装工料费617美元；以上小计3031美元；
|
9. Kellett Company's various expenses paid for the litigation: (1) the translation fee was 405000 Forints, approximately 3110 USD; (2) the fee for certifying the translation paid to the translation certification office, was 139700 Forints, approximately 963 USD; (3) the authentication fees paid to Hungarian Ministry of Justice and Ministry of Foreign Affairs were 48500 Forints, approximately 335 USD; (4) the authentication fee paid to Chinese embassy accredited to Hungary was 30000 Forints, approximately 207 USD; (5) the expenses for Kellett Company's round-trip air tickets were 1500 USD ×9 persons = 13500 USD; (6) the corresponding fee was 300 USD; (7) the communication fee was 235 USD; (8) the lawyer agency fee was 9500 USD; the above expenses totaled 28150 USD.
The above losses totaled 147221 USD.
Tianjin Company contended: as the goods in this case were actually carried by Air China, and the losses, if any, were caused during the period of Air China's control of the goods, Air China should bear the final liabilities. Tianjin Company applied on January 29, 1997 for adding Air China as the third party to participate in the litigation. Tianjin Company also considered that it was Air China's agent for freight, not a carrier. Tianjin Company concluded the transport contract with Electronic Instruments & Meters Company on August 23, 1995 in the identity of an agent. Since the agent had performed its duties completely and properly, and the loss of goods and that from the delay, as mentioned by Kellett Company, were caused during the period of Air China's control of the goods, the losses should be borne by Air China, the carrier. Moreover, Tianjin Company considered that Kellett Company had lost the right to litigation. Because Kellett Company picked up its goods on September 25, 1995, but claimed against Tianjin Company for the loss of goods and that from the delay on October 18 of the same year, which had exceeded the period for demurral provided for in the international treaty. Therefore, the court should reject Kellett Company's litigation claims.
．．．．．． | | 9．为诉讼原告的各种支出：(1)翻译费用405000福林，约合3110美元；(2)翻译认证局翻译认证费139700福林，约合963美元；(3)匈牙利司法部、外交部认证费用48500福林，约合335美元，(4)中国驻匈使馆认证费30000福林，约合207美元；(5)原告往返机票1500美元×9人次＝13500美元；(6)通信费用300美元；(7)通讯费用235美元；(8)律师代理费用9500美元，小计28150美元。
以上损失合计147221美元。
被告天津公司辩称：由于此案的货物是第三人国航公司负责实际承运，如有损失，也是在国航公司掌管期间发生，应由国航公司承担最终责任，并于1997年元月29日申请追加了国航公司为第三人参加诉讼。被告天津公司还认为天津公司系国航公司货物运输的代理人而非承运人，1995年8月23日被告与电子仪表公司签订的运输合同系以代理人身份签订的，由于代理人完全适当地履行了职责，原告所称的货损及延误，是在承运人国航公司掌管期间发生的，其损失应由承运人承担。另外，被告天津公司认为原告已丧失诉权。理由为原告于1995年9月25日提取其货物，而于同年10月18日向被告主张货损及延误，已超过国际条约规定的异议期限。应驳回原告的诉讼请求。
第三人国航公司辩称：(一)原告凯雷特公司已丧失诉权，999-87776776号运单下的货物是由国航公司于1995年8月30日交德国汉莎航空公司承运，汉莎航空公司分别于同年9月4日、9月11日将该票货物运抵布达佩斯，货物伙伴公司在收货当天及时通知了原告，原告由于自己的原因迟迟没有提货，直至9月26日方才提取，原告的行为已构成了受领迟延。原告直到10月18日方就货损一事提交书面索赔函，按照有关国际条约的规定，如有货损发生，收货人应在货物收到后14天内提出索赔，如有延误，索赔应在21天内提出，这说明原告提出索赔已超过规定期限并丧失了相应权利，无权再向承运人索赔。(二)德国汉莎航空公司是999－87776776号货运的实际承运人之一，货损发生在其承运的航段，汉莎航空公司应参加本案的诉讼。(三)该批货物已经承运人在合理期限内运到目的地并未延误，因为承运人及其代理人与托运人并未约定货物到达的日期，何时到达只能由航空运输部门及航空运输的实际情况来决定。(四)原告的索赔数额很不属实，指出该批货物实际总价25210美元，根据有关国际条约，在交运行李和货物运输中，承运人对行李和货物的责任以每公斤250金法郎(后换算确定为20美元/公斤)为限。除非托运人在交运包件时，曾特别声明在目的地交付的利益，并缴付必要的附加费。查看999－87776776号运单声明价值栏，托运人未特别声明在目的地交付时的利益，则其损失只能在上述规定的每公斤20美元的限额内按实际损失的价值计算赔偿额。
．．．．．． |
Dear visitor,you are attempting to view a subscription-based section of lawinfochina.com. If you are already a subscriber, please login to enjoy access to our databases . If you are not a subscriber, please subscribe . Should you have any questions, please contact us at:
+86 (10) 8268-9699 or +86 (10) 8266-8266 (ext. 153)
Mobile: +86 133-1157-0713
Fax: +86 (10) 8266-8268
database@chinalawinfo.com
| |
您好：您现在要进入的是北大法律英文网会员专区，如您是我们英文用户可直接 登录，进入会员专区查询您所需要的信息；如您还不是我们 的英文用户，请注册并交纳相应费用成为我们的英文会员 。如有问题请来电咨询；
Tel: +86 (10) 82689699, +86 (10) 82668266 ext. 153
Mobile: +86 13311570713
Fax: +86 (10) 82668268
E-mail: database@chinalawinfo.com
|
| | | | | | | | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Message: Please kindly comment on the present translation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Translations are by lawinfochina.com, and we retain exclusive copyright over content
found on our website except for content we publish as authorized by respective copyright
owners or content that is publicly available from government sources.
Due to differences in language, legal systems, and culture, English translations
of Chinese law are for reference purposes only. Please use the official Chinese-language
versions as the final authority. lawinfochina.com and its staff will not be directly
or indirectly liable for use of materials found on this website.
We welcome your comments and suggestions, which assist us in continuing to improve
the quality of our materials.
|
|
| |
|
|