Judgement of the Central Intellectual Property
and International Trade Court

Even though the method of carriage of good is CY type at the destination, The plaintiff was the one who issued the bill of lading stating quantity and weight of the goods. The plaintiff, therefore, was borne the duty to delivery the goods accordingly. When the weight of good was lost at the time of delivery, it was the plaintiff liability to the consignee due to that loss.

The defendant, shipper, mistakenly declared the weight of the goods in the invoice and the shipping particular more than the actual weight of goods which were carried. That mistake caused the plaintiff to issue the bill of lading according to that wrongful information and consequently made the plaintiff burden compensation to the consignee when the goods were not delivered as per the weight stated in the bill of lading. The defendant, therefore, was hold to be liable for the plaintiff’s payment to the consignee.

Before the plaintiff remunerated the consignee damages according to loss of weight, the defendant had informed the plaintiff not to pay any damages to the consignee and challenge the suit the consignee brought against the plaintiff. The defendant would cooperate in providing all evidence to argue against the consignee’s claim. But the plaintiff entered into negotiation with the consignee and paid damages without producing any evidence against that action while there was a reasonable ground to challenge the consignee’s claim. This compromising of the plaintiff constituted neglect to protect the right and diminish liability concerning the claim of damage therein according to the Civil and Commercial Code Section 223. The plaintiff, therefore, was entitled to be compensated by the defendant only half of the money the plaintiff had paid to the consignee due to his default.