The legal status of both parties is unknown
There is a case in the United States in which In the case, several ocean-going containers from Asia were damaged in a train accident on a company's line, with the total loss amounting to US$1.5 million. The company claimed that it was not responsible because its legal entity in the transportation industry was an international ocean shipping agent, not a railway company. Domestic common carriers may be responsible for the total value of the loss or damage. However, under the COGSA, the limit is $500 per box. According to the record of the bill of lading, a cardboard box, a pallet or an entire container can be regarded as a packaging box. Of course, the difference in liability depends largely on the status of each carrier in the shipment and how the bill of lading is documented.
Every year, millions of containers are shipped to the United States by sea, rail, and truck. Usually due to vague and sloppy records on documents and no one paying attention, the legal status of the parties to the transaction is unclear. When losses occur, importers, exporters, and insured transporters ultimately have to resolve it through the law to determine Who is responsible and how much is responsible.
There is also another situation, that is, large and powerful large enterprises or groups rely on their strong strength in contract negotiations to maximize their own business risks. Push it to the logistics operator. If for any reason, any cargo damage or difference occurs during the period of the logistics operator's control, the logistics operator will bear full liability for compensation. In another situation, some logistics contracts do not stipulate the rights and obligations of both parties or the stipulations are unclear. If the time and place of cargo damage and cargo difference cannot be determined, how and what kind of responsibilities a logistics operator with mixed status should bear may be problematic. dispute. Therefore, it is very necessary to clarify the sharing of relevant responsibilities and ensure one's own legitimate interests.
Accurately grasp customer needs
When the two parties negotiate a logistics cooperation agreement, many logistics service providers In order to obtain logistics business, ignore one's own ability to cater to the buyer's logistics needs, exaggerate one's own logistics capabilities, resulting in promises that are too high and cannot be fulfilled, so that the actual logistics service cannot meet the needs of the end customer, thus destroying the trust of both parties and even causing legal disputes. . Therefore, listening to customers' opinions, understanding their needs, grasping their needs and satisfying them as much as possible is conducive to establishing a trust mechanism for cooperation between the two parties.Establish long-term partnerships with.
Therefore, experts remind that as a prudent logistics operator, when signing a logistics service contract, you must carefully confirm the responsibilities and obligations of both parties, not only to protect your own tangible Economic interests must also protect intangible credit properties.
No comments yet. Say something...