Maersk line vs court of appeals

A motion to alter or amend a judgment under this rule must be filed no later than 28 11 days after the entry of judgment. The issues having been joined, private respondent moved for the dismissal of the complaint against Eli Lilly, Inc.

Pacific Far East Line, Inc. By agreement between the carrier, master, or agent of the carrier, and the shipper another maximum amount than that mentioned in this paragraph may be fixed: Nonetheless, petitioner maintains that it cannot be held liable for damages for the alleged delay in the delivery of theempty gelatin capsules since it acted in good faith and there was no special contract under which the carrier undertook to deliver the shipment on or before a specific date Rollo, p.

This definition comports with the plain and ordinary meaning of the term. Philippine Air Lines, Inc. In this regard, there arises no need to execute another contract for the purpose as it would be a mere superfluity.

Case Digest: Sea-land Service, Inc. vs. Court of Appeals

In contracts, exemplary damages may be awarded if the defendant acted in a wanton, fraudulent, reckless, oppresive or malevolent manner. However, under the facts of this case it seems this preparation was made because this was the only method for getting the K-Loader onto the ship.

All twelve containers were shipped on Maersk Tangier on 24 November On appeal, respondent court rendered its decision dated August 1, affirming with modifications the lower court's decision as follows: Since the latter had filed a cross-claim against appellant Maersk Line, the trial court committed no error, therefore, in holding the latter appellant ultimately liable to appellee.


But where a carrier has made an express contract to transport and deliver properly within a specified time, it is bound to fulfill its contract and is liable for any delay, no matter from what cause it may have arisen. While the United States argues that it did not intend that the K-Loader would be placed on a flat rack, it concedes that it knew and understood that this was the only way for Maersk to realistically lift the immobilized K-Loader onto the ship.

Padilla v. Maersk Line, Limited, No. 12-834 (2d Cir. 2013)

II Whether or not respondent Castillo is entitled to damages resulting from delay in the delivery of the shipment in the absence in the bill of lading of a stipulation on the period of delivery.

Here, however, the CBA does not limit the availability of unearned wages 10 11 and so we must apply general maritime law. Being a contract, it is the law between the parties who are bound by its terms and conditions provided that these are not contrary to law, morals, good customs, public order and public policy.

In Magellan, suprawe ruled: Emphasis supplied However, the aforequoted ruling applies only if such contracts will not create an absurd situation as in the case at bar. The oft-repeated rule regarding a carrier's liability for delay is that in the absence of a special contract, a carrier is not an insurer against delay in transportation of goods.

One who adheres to the contract is in reality free to reject it in its entirety; if he adheres, he gives his consent Magellan Manufacturing Marketing Corporation v.

Considering that the only evidence presented by the defendant Maersk line thru its agent the Compania de Tabacos de Filipinas is the testimony of Rolando Ramirez who testified on Exhs.

Because Maersk did not meet this time 12 limitation, its motion is considered under Rule 60 b and Maersk must demonstrate excusable 13 neglect.MAERSK LINE vs. CA G.R. No.May 17, FACTS: Petitioner Maersk Line is engaged in the transportation of goods by sea, doing business in the Philippines through its general agent, Compania de Tabacos de Filipinas, while private respondent Efren Castillo is the proprietor of Ethegal Laboratories, a firm engaged in the manufacture of pharmaceutical products.

The appellant appeals against the Order of Andrew Baker J sitting in the Commercial Court dated 30 May whereby he determined a series of preliminary issues in.

Padilla v. Maersk Line, Limited, No. 12-834 (2d Cir. 2013)

Markers Line vs. Court of Appeals Case Digest By Monomaniacal and petitioner as carrier. Petitioner Markers Line being an original party defendant upon whom the delayed shipment is imputed cannot claim that the dismissal of the complaint against Eli Lilly inured to its benefit.

court of appeals, a.p. moller/maersk line and maersk-tabacalera shipping agency (filipinas), inc. [g.r.

Maersk Line vs Court of Appeals Case Digest

no. Padilla v. Maersk Line, Limited, No. (2d Cir. ) Maersk also appeals the district court s decision denying its motion to amend the amended 14 judgment under Rule 59(e) by removing the fifteen officers whose employment was governed by 15 the AMOU CBA.

The district court denied the motion because it was six months late, because it. In Saludo, Jr. v. Court of Appeals ( SCRA []) this Court held: "The oft-repeated rule regarding a carrier’s liability for delay is that in the absence of a special contract, a carrier is not an insurer against delay in transportation of goods.

Maersk line vs court of appeals
Rated 0/5 based on 45 review