HE HEACOCK CO v MACONDRAY CO 42 Phil 205 October 3 1921 FACTS The plaintiff

He heacock co v macondray co 42 phil 205 october 3

This preview shows page 3 - 4 out of 8 pages.

H.E. HEACOCK CO. v. MACONDRAY & CO. 42 Phil. 205, October 3, 1921 FACTS: The plaintiff shipped Edmonton clocks from New York to Manila on board a vessel of the defendant. It was agreed in the bill of lading that the value of the goods receipted do not exceed US$500 per freight on or in proportion for any part of a ton, unless the value be expressly stated in the bill and freight paid. It was also agreed that in the event of claims for shortage or damage the carrier shall not be liable for more than the net invoice price plus freight and insurance less charges, and any loss or damage for which the carrier may be liable shall be adjusted pro rata on said basis. The clocks were not delivered despite demands. Plaintiff claimed P420.00, the market value of the clocks, while defendant tendered only P76.36, the proportionate freight ton value. Trial court decided for the plaintiff for P226.02, the invoice value plus freight and insurance. Both parties appealed. HELD: Three kinds of stipulations have often been made in a bill of lading. First, one exempting the carrier from any and all liability for loss or damage occasioned by its own negligence. Second, one providing for an unqualified limitation of such liability to an agreed valuation. Third, one limiting the liability of the carrier to an agreed valuation unless the shipper declares a higher value and pays a higher rate of freight. According to an almost uniform weight for authority, the first and second kinds of stipulations are invalid as being contrary to public policy, but the third is valid and enforceable. A stipulation in a bill of lading which limits the liability of the carrier to a specified amount unless the shipper declares a higher value and pays a higher freight is valid and enforceable. Thus, if a carrier gives to a shipper the choice for two rates, the lower of them conditioned upon his agreeing to a stipulated valuation of his property in case of loss, even by the earner’s negligence, if the shipper makes the choice understandingly and freely, and names his valuation, he cannot thereafter recover more than the value which he thus places upon his property. Judgment AFFIRMED. KLM ROYAL DUTCH AIRLINES v CA (65 SCRA 237) FACTS: Spouses Mendoza approached Mr. Reyes, the branch manager of Philippine Travel Bureau, for consultation about a world tour which they were intending to make with their daughter and niece. Three segments of the trip, the longest, was via KLM. Respondents decided that one of the routes they will take was a Barcelona-Lourdes route with knowledge that only one airline, Aer Lingus, served it. Reyes made the necessary reservations. To this, KLM secured seat reservations for the Mendoza’s and their companions from the carriers which would ferry them throughout their trip, which the exception of Aer Lingus. When the Mendoza’s left the Philippines, they were issued KLM tickets for the entire trip.
Image of page 3
Image of page 4

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture