Goods Transportation Agreement. Consequences of transporting other goods than those set in the agreement

DREPTUL AFACERILOR/ASPECTE DE DREPT PROCESUAL

Abstract

The provisions of Article 1981 paragraph (1) and (4) or Article 1984 Civil Code, which regulate the consequences of the recipient's refusal to take over the goods, i.e. the cases in which the carrier's liability intervenes, start from the hypothesis that the goods transported and brought to the recipient are exactly the goods ordered and should have been transported.

In the dispute before the court, exactly that premise is not fulfilled because the plaintiff-appellant, through its own driver, transported goods other than those which were the subject of the transport order, so that the above-mentioned legal provisions do not apply and nobody can be forced to accept what it did not order or be held civilly liable, in the absence of committing a culpable tort or contractual act, or in the absence of a contractually assumed obligation, for a transport carried out incorrectly by a third party.

It is less relevant whether or not the plaintiff’ driver is at fault, or whether any possible fault of his was concomitant with a culpable act of those who loaded the ordered goods. What is relevant is that the plaintiff-applicant, in particular, did not fulfill its contractual obligation as assumed by the agreement because it did not transport the ordered goods and, on the other hand, no unlawful and culpable, tort or contract-based act of the defendant – addressee can be identified, or his civil (legal or contractual) liability to bear the damage thus incurred by the plaintiff-appellant in the given circumstances.