The order of the Central Intellectual Property
and International Trade Court

Although the method of ocean carriage of good was CY to CY type, the first defendant, the carrier, was the owner of the container which was provided temperature control mechanism. When the container was unloaded from the ship, the first defendant had duty to take care of the temperature control machine to assure that it worked correctly and steady until the consignee received that good. In this case, the fact revealed that the ship (President Hover) arrived at the destination port on December 3, 1995. The first defendant unloaded the good from the ship and assigned the second defendant to move the container to the S.C.T courtyard where the first defendant had rent. The first defendant also hired Container Care Co. to check the temperature control machine during the period of unloading from the ship till the consignee received the good. The consignee received the good on December 6, 1995. The court considered that December 6, 1995 was the date of delivery. The plaintiff brought the action on December 4, 1996 within one year from delivery date. Therefore, the action of the plaintiff is not bared by the time limit of the law.

The performance of the second defendant was in the scope of an agent to implement of the assignment of the first defendant in carriage of goods by moving the container to the courtyard. The second defendant, therefore, was not considered a carrier or other carrier according to the Carriage of Goods by Sea Act B.E.2534 (1991) Section 3. The second defendant was not liable for the damages to the plaintiff.