The Supreme Court has agreed to hear the Kawasaki case regarding "through" bills of lading and the interplay between the federal statutes governing cargo shipped by rail vs. cargo shipped by sea. My earlier post explaining the lower court decision is here. The Supreme Court order granting certiorari is here.
This case in a nutshell: federal law allows parties to a bill of lading different rights and remedies when the cargo is shipped by sea or by rail. But, what happens when cargo is shipped by sea AND rail. In this case, the parties chose (as allowed by the Carriage of Goods at Sea Act) to have Tokyo be the forum for any dispute. Such a provision would not be permitted in a rail shipping contract. So, when cargo gets damaged on the rail portion of the shipment, does the rail law trump the parties' express forum selection?
Stay tuned and we shall see.
Comments