International air carriage lawContract lawCivil procedure
Keywords
Warsaw ConventionCarriage by Air ActPrescriptionArticle 26Article 29Written complaint
Tags
International carriage by airWarsaw ConventionPrescriptionWritten complaint requirement
legislation
Statutes Cited
Convention for the Unification of Certain Rules Relating to International Carriage by Air (Warsaw Convention 1929, as amended by Hague Protocol 1955)
Carriage by Air Act [Cap 13:04]
Prescription Act [Cap 8:11]
ai analysis
Case Summary
Key Issues
{"issue_text":"Whether plaintiff complied with Article 26 requirement to submit written complaint within 21 days of cargo arrival","issue_type":"procedural","dispositive":"yes","related_facts":"Cargo arrived 10 June 2008, no evidence of written complaint"}
{"issue_text":"Whether plaintiff's claim is prescribed under Article 29's 2-year limitation period","issue_type":"procedural","dispositive":"yes","related_facts":"Cargo scheduled May 2008, summons issued May 2010"}
{"issue_text":"Whether defendant is estopped from relying on Convention provisions","issue_type":"law","dispositive":"no","related_facts":"Alleged pre-litigation correspondence"}
This summary was generated by AI. Use Zalari to read the full judgment.
background
Facts of the Case
Background
The plaintiff, a Zimbabwean art and craft company, contracted the defendant international airline to transport cargo from Harare to Porto Alegre, Brazil for an exhibition scheduled for 2 May 2008. The cargo arrived on 10 June 2008, over a month late. The plaintiff claimed special damages of US$13,765.29 and general damages of US$51,845.00. The defendant raised a plea in abatement arguing the claim was bad at law for failure to submit a written complaint within 21 days as required by Article 26 of the Warsaw Convention, and that the claim was prescribed under Article 29.
Read the full judgment, get AI analysis, and find related cases