SEA-LAND SERVICE, INC., APPELLANT,
v.
CAP INTERNATIONAL TRADING CORP., APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
A shipper sued an ocean carrier for breach of a guaranteed arrival date for pickled pig tails destined for Jamaica, claiming the late arrival caused it to miss a tariff deadline and suffer damages. The court reversed the jury verdict, holding that parol evidence of the guaranteed delivery date was improperly admitted because the bill of lading was unambiguous.
The court held that parol evidence was improperly admitted to establish a guaranteed arrival date because the bill of lading was unambiguous. Without this evidence, the shipper failed to establish a prima facie case of breach, since the goods arrived in good condition. The carrier was entitled to a directed verdict.
[1] Parol evidence may not be introduced to alter or vary the terms of an undertaking unless the bill of lading is ambiguous.
[2] A party's attempt to minimize the harmful effect of opposing testimony does not place the subject matter of that testimony at issue.
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“unless a bill of lading is ambiguous, parol evidence may not be introduced to alter or vary the terms of the undertaking”
Establishes the governing rule that parol evidence is barred for unambiguous bills of lading
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceA shipper arranged to sell pickled pig tails to a buyer in Jamaica, with the transaction's profitability dependent on arrival before a tariff increase…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Bill Of Lading Construction cases and more on FLexlaw
NESBITT, Judge.
The appellant, an ocean carrier, appeals a judgment in favor of the appellee shipper awarding it compensatory and consequential damages on a claim of an alleged breach of guaranteed arrival date , of the goods at the destination. We reverse.
The shipper was interested in consummating a sale of pickled pig tails to a buyer in Kingston, Jamaica. The economic fea sibility of the transaction was based upon the arrival of the pig tails in Jamaica prior to an increase in tariff. When the trucker loaded and weighed the containers for overland transportation from Toronto to Port Elizabeth, New Jersey, it found that the containers were overweight and for that reason refused to carry them. Ultimately, however, the trucker transported the containers to Port Elizabeth. Upon arrival, a representative of the ocean carrier advised the shipper that the delivery of the cargo could not be made as originally projected.
Nonetheless, the shipper chose to proceed with the transaction. The pig tails arrived in Kingston in good condition but not before the anticipated tariff increase occurred. The purchaser refused to consummate the transaction and the shipper attempted to mitigate damages by placing the pickled pig tails in cold storage. Ultimately, a portion was sold and the remainder spoiled. The shipper then commenced this action against the carrier claiming compensatory damages for out-of-pocket expenses incurred and loss of anticipated profit.1
At a pretrial conference, the carrier obtained a favorable ruling on a motion in limine to exclude all evidence as to a guaranteed arrival date of the goods in Kingston, based on the rule of law that unless a bill of lading is ambiguous, parol evidence may not be introduced to alter or vary the terms of the undertaking. Boss Linco Lines v. Brady Enterprises, 49 A.D.2d 679, 370 N.Y.S.2d 737 (1975); 46 U.S.C. App. § 1301(b) (1982).
Nonetheless, evidence of the agreement was admitted during the shipper’s case-in-chief, to which the carrier objected. During the carrier’s casein-chief, its representative was asked whether any such agreement was made and a negative answer was given. On this record, the trial court agreed with the shipper’s counsel that the carrier placed the guaranteed arrival date at issue. The court therefore permitted further evidence of a guaranteed arrival by the shipper during its case in rebuttal, permitted oral argument thereon, and instructed the jury. It returned a favorable verdict, all over the carrier’s protest.
We agree with the carrier that the introduction and use of the parol evidence was improper. Boss Linco Lines, 370 N.Y.S.2d at 739. When the carrier’s attorney questioned its witness about the alleged agreement to deliver the goods by a date certain, his purpose was to minimize the harmful effect of the testimony of the shipper’s witness. That witness's testimony did not go beyond that narrow scope. Carbone v. Coblentz, 132 So. 2d 629, 630 (Fla. 3d DCA 1961) and cases cited therein. Without the improper admission of the parol evidence, it is undisputed that the record shows that the pig tails arrived in Kingston in good condition. The shipper, therefore, failed to make out a prima facie case involving damaged goods. For this reason, it was error to deny the carrier’s motion for directed verdict at the close of the shipper’s case.
Accordingly, the judgment is reversed and remanded for entry of judgment in favor of the appellant.
. The shipment of these goods is governed by the Carriage of Goods at Sea Act, 46 U.S.C.App. §§ 1300-1315 (1982).