F ID I SE RV I C E S Learning tough lessons from bill of lading wording change Shipping lines have reportedly changed key wording on the bill of lading with at least one Affiliate already discovering the implications of this the hard way. Max Chorus of Streff shares the companys recent experience I Max Chorus, Managing Director, Streff n FIDI Focus issue 302, we reported on the uncertainties and possible surprises that may arise from changes in the contractual conditions imposed by shipping lines. Streff has been involved in a legal case regarding the shipping of containers to Togo and promised we would report on the outcome once this had been concluded. First, here is a reminder of the case details: We were transporting two 40foot containers of charity goods to Togo, on behalf of a customer, an NGO with a partner NGO in the destination country. Our contract specified that our services to this customer would end when the goods were unloaded at the port. However, once the goods arrived in Togo, the consignee refused to pay the fees and taxes Changes to bill of lading wording A reminder of the new mandatory wording on the bill of lading (BL): l The term jointly and severally with in the consignee field of the BL is indeed being requested in an ad hoc way by some shipping lines (MSC worldwide and Hapag-Lloyd, ZIM and CMA CGM in the US, for example). l This requirement emerged in some countries a few years ago (for example, Canada, Italy and Colombia). While it is currently being enforced in countries such as Sweden and Hong Kong, it is apparently unheard of in other countries such as Australia, Israel or the Netherlands. l The clause jointly and severally with has significant legal implications for the companies bound under such a clause. As defined in the Osborns Concise Law Dictionary, it is the obligation entered into by two or more persons, so that each is liable severally, and all liable jointly, and a creditor or obligee may sue one or more severally, or all jointly, according to their own judgement. that were applicable for receiving the goods and the containers therefore remained at the port. We were not informed about this situation by either the shipper or the consignee. The consignee refused to pay the charges even when they were contacted by the shipping line. The shipper also refused to pay the costs so, after a few months, the shipping line turned to us. We were named in the bill of lading and as both NGOs had ceased their activities the liability arising from the clauses of the shipping lines contracts applied to us. This was based on the following reasoning: We hope our experience can help other FIDI Affiliates protect themselves from significant financial losses 62 FF308 Dec-Jan 23 pp62-63 Containers.indd 62 05/12/2022 17:13