Logistics contracts

In 2024, the courts of various instances also dealt with fascinating issues in logistics and transportation law. Many practically relevant decisions were made on topics including jurisdiction, the applicable liability regime, and the basis and scope of liability for damage.

Expenses saved after cancellation of a transportation agreement

The German Federal Court of Justice ruled (judgment of 1 August 2023 – X ZR 118/22) that an aviation company must accept the deduction of expenses saved when a flight is not taken (in accordance with the second sentence of section 648 of the German Civil Code). This shall apply regardless of whether this was even included in the calculation of the final price or disclosed to the ordering party. According to the Federal Cour of Justice, no other interpretation would be possible from the wording or the meaning and purpose of this legal provision. A passenger transportation agreement is governed by the regulations on contracts for work. Thus, an airline passenger can, according to the first sentence of section 648 of the German Civil Code, cancel the transportation agreement at any time – even implicitly, by not taking the flight. No other assessment is possible based on the EU law rules on setting and displaying flight prices for intra-EU flight services (Regulation (EC) No 1008/2008), as this only specifies the price calculation and the disclosure thereof to the passenger but not the mutual rights and obligations after application of the right of withdrawal.

Validity of a jurisdiction clause in the bill of lading

In this decision (judgment of 25 April 2024 − C-345/22, C-346/22, C-347/22), the Court of Justice of the European Union affirmed its case law to date which stated that a jurisdiction agreement effectively agreed between the shipper and freight forwarder in a bill of lading can be invoked against a third-party owner even without its consent if under applicable national law, the third-party owner has taken over all rights and obligations of one of the initial parties by purchasing the bill of lading. If the third-party owner has not effectively taken over the position of the shipper, however, the jurisdiction agreement only applies to the third-party owner if it has consented to it. A national provision stating that a jurisdiction clause in a bill of lading has a third-party effect only under the additional condition that it was individually and separately negotiated with the third party is contrary to EU law, the Court of Justice of the European Union said.

Burden of proof in the case of prematurely destroyed allegedly contaminated food

According to Bückeburg Regional Court (judgment of 19 November 2024 – 3 O 3/22), simply the fact that people (refugees) probably spent a long period inside the truck without authorisation does not in itself directly mean that contamination (such as odours or transmission of pests) can be assumed in packaged food if the mere suspicion could easily have been dispelled but the food was immediately destroyed without prior inspection. This applies even if apparently all parties involved assumed the goods had to be destroyed, the court said.

Classification of liability regime for loading damage during multimodal transport

The Bamberg Higher Regional Court (decision of 2 February 2024 − 3 U 114/23) answered the question of whether the liability regime of the law on the overland carriage of goods or the law of carriage by sea applied in the case of damage which occurred during the transhipment on a port area by stating that the loading and offloading during multimodal transport is in principle always to be allocated to the part of the route of the transport mode which is being loaded or unloaded at that time. This is because the loading and unloading of goods is to be seen as an annex to the previous or subsequent carriage of those goods.

International jurisdiction in the case of carriage according to the CMR

The Hamm Higher Regional Court (judgment of 21 December 2023 – 18 U 127/23) ruled that contracts are to be interpreted according to German law if the parties agree on the application of German law in deviation from Article 5 of the Rome I Regulation. However, if an interpretation under German law leads to the exclusion of the venue according to the CMR, this is a breach of the first sentence of Article 31(1) of the CMR which only permits the international jurisdiction of additional signatory states, the court said. Therefore, the agreement is invalid under the first sentence of Article 41(1) of the CMR and thus the jurisdictions provided for under the CMR are relevant, the court said. The purely legal agreement of a fictitious place of fulfilment does not establish a different jurisdiction, the court added.

Scope of the presumption in the second sentence of section 429 (2) of the German Commercial Code on the cost of reducing damage and remedying damage

In the opinion of Bremen Regional Court (judgment of 9 January 2024 – 11 O 196/20), in addition to repair costs, the costs of organising and carrying out the remedying of damage, including determining the extent of damage, the cost of experts, washing and handling costs under section 429(2) of the German Commercial Code are also to be recognised as reimbursable costs in the case of transportation damage since they are equally necessary to restore goods affected by damage to their original condition.

Liability of a warehouse keeper for deviations in inventory

Bad Kreuznach Regional Court (judgment of 12 September 2024 – 2 O 114/23) found a grossly negligent breach of material contractual obligations in proceedings for damages by a wine merchant against a warehouse keeper. The warehouse keeper handled contractually for the wine merchant the goods-in process, storage and shipping of the goods.

Although unexplained deviations in inventory were found at an initial stocktake and approx. 50 bottles stored by the wine merchant at the warehouse keeper disappeared, the warehouse keeper took no actions to prevent further damage. When some of the stored bottles were missing in a further stocktake, for which the wine merchant demanded damages, the Regional Court affirmed that there was qualified culpability on the part of the warehouse keeper and rejected due to No. 27.2 of the German Freight Forwarders’ Standard Terms and Conditions 2017 (ADSp 2017) a liability restriction per No. 24.1 of those terms and conditions, which was in principle effectively included, which is why the warehouse keeper was fully liable for the bottles missing in the second stocktake, the court said.

This article is part of the "Update Commercial 2025". All insights and the entire report as a PDF can be found here.