Članak razmatra propis o odgovornosti za zakašnjenje u predaji tereta predložen u CMI-jevom Final Draft Instrument of Transport Law od 10. prosinca 2001. i navodi prijedloge delegata HDPP, dane na sastanku 12. i 13. studenog 2001. u Madridu (na kojem je navedeni nacrt načinjen). Zaključuje se da se za razdoblje zakašnjenja u predaji tereta priznaje izgubljena zarada zbog nekorištenja stvari, dok se ta ista šteta ne priznaje za razdoblje potrebno za popravak oštećenja na stvari nastalog tijekom prijevoza obavljenog u roku. Za ovako različit pristup nema načelnog opravdanja pa se predlaže da se u oba slučaja prizna obična šteta i izgubljena zarada, te da ograničenje odgovornosti bude za sve štete jedinstveno. Suprotan, praktičan pristup (opravdan niskim prevozninama po jedinici tereta u današnjim masovnim prijevozima, problematičnim dokazivanjem predvidljivosti daljnje štete te njenim mogućim visokim iznosima) upućivao bi na isključenje odgovornosti za štete kod zakašnjenja, s tim da bi korisnik prijevoza morao tu odgovornost posebno ugovoriti s prijevoznikom i dodatno je platiti ako je želi za određeni prijevoz imati.The article analysis carrier\u27s liability for delay in delivery of the goods under the rules of CMI Draft Instrument otl Transport Law and explains the proposals made by the Croatian MLA delegation at ISC Madrid conference on 12 and 13 November 2001. In case of delay in delivery of the goods the carrier shall be liable for consequential loss (in draft wording : loss not resulting from loss or damage to the goods) because the consignee has been deprived of using the goods during the period of delay, However, on the other hand, if the consignee is deprived of using the goods for the same period of time
due to necessary repairs of damage suffered by the goods (which otherwise were delivered on time) during the transport, then the consignee shall be denied of consequential loss. There is, in principle, no reason to distinguish damages for loss or damage to the goods from damages for delay. Therefore the suggestion is to treat loss and damage to the goods in the same way as the loss or damage suffered through delay of the goods. Same limit of liability should be applied for both types of damage. A pragmatic approach (justified by low freights per unit in contemporary mass transportation, problematic prove of the consequential loss, and its possible large magnitude) would point towards exclusion of the consequential loss resulting from delay in delivery, allowing, however, the parties to the contract of carriage to agree on such liability, presumably for a higher freight, if the shipper wishes to be in position to hold the carrier liable for delay in delivery of the goods
