Opinion of the German Reichsgericht in the Matter of Suedd. Transp. Vers. A..G., Plaintiff-Appellant v. W., Defendant-Respondent
Germany Reich Court
RGZ 106 386 (1923)
- Written by Curtis Parvin, JD
Facts
Suedd. Transp. Vers. A..G. (STV) (plaintiff), the assignee of a shipper of goods, arranged for W (defendant), a Berlin freight forwarder, to send the goods. The shipping contract contained a standardized clause created by the Association of Berlin Forwarders, which required the freight forwarder to insure the goods if the contract specified a value amount—with the shipper to pay the insurance premium—with recovery for loss limited to the insured amount. If no value was stated or the shipper did not seek insurance, the clause provided for a limitation of liability based on weight. The goods were stolen while in W’s custody, and STV sued W. W relied on the limitation-of-liability clause. STV argued that the limitation-of-liability clause was a unilateral monopolistic limitation barred by German law. Both the trial court and the appellate court held in favor of W, reasoning that the availability of insurance satisfied the ability to recover damages for lost or stolen goods. STV appealed to the Reich Court—the highest civil court in Germany from 1879 to 1945.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Per curiam)
What to do next…
Here's why 811,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.
