A federal court in Mexico has issued a public ruling on an international multimodal transport contract and on the liability of the logistics operator.
A Mexican company, in its capacity as shipper (the entity that hands over the goods to the carrier or operator), entered into an international multimodal transport contract for goods (carriage of goods by at least two different modes of transport), which were imported from China.
For this purpose, the shipper hired another Mexican company as a carrier or operator, which was responsible for managing the transport of the goods from China to the address specified by the shipper.
The shipper filed a lawsuit seeking damages from the operator on the grounds that one of the subcontractors it had hired was the victim of a cargo theft, and the court rendered an adverse judgment absolving the operator of liability.
In response to that ruling, the shipper filed a direct amparo proceeding to challenge it. The federal court that examined this new trial determined that the controversy revolves around an international multimodal transport contract, which is not regulated by the Commercial Code.
The court relied on the United Nations Convention on International Multimodal Transport of Goods, as well as the Regulations for International Multimodal Transport, to determine the following:
- The operator, regardless of whether it subcontracts the necessary transportation of the goods, shall be liable for the total or partial loss of the goods, for any damage or defects, and even for delays in delivery. This liability arises from the moment the goods are taken into custody until delivery. Unless there is an act of God or force majeure, or even due to the products’ own hidden defects.
- Likewise, such liability may be canceled or mitigated if the carrier demonstrates that it, its employes, or its agents took all measures of care that could reasonably have been required to prevent the event and its consequences.
- This was based on the argument that the carrier holds a privileged position under the contract, having direct contact with the subcontracted carriers who will transport the goods as agreed. Therefore, it will bear the burden of proof to demonstrate that it took the measures mentioned above.
- The trial judge did not address the point that the carrier failed to provide evidence showing how it fulfilled its duty of care for the goods from the time they were placed at its disposal.
- Therefore, the federal court granted the relief sought by the shipper. Meaning that the trial judge should examine the controversy in a consistent manner, properly address the burden of proof, and thoroughly analyze the evidence presented by the shipper.
Some conclusions can be drawn from this case that will help prevent adverse situations and misunderstandings:
(i) In the case described, the parties should have entered into the contract in writing. Although it is not a legal requirement that an international multimodal transport contract be in writing for it to be valid and effective, it is always advisable to document the contract’s title and terms in writing.
(ii) This will also help prevent the parties from misinterpreting the type of contract, avoiding confusion between a land or maritime transport contract, which are governed by different laws in Mexico. These contracts establish specific responsibilities for each party and different limitation periods.
(iii) By clearly detailing the rights and obligations of each party in the contract, the shipper will prevent the operator from posing as a mere intermediary and avoid assuming the responsibilities of a carrier under the international multimodal transport contract.
Below are the Court’s decisions (in Spanish)
.
.
.
.
