Missed cash collection: compensation for the CMR cash on delivery amount

If the carrier delivers the goods without collecting the agreed cash on delivery charge, Article 21 CMR makes the carrier liable to the sender for compensation up to the amount of that charge. The carrier may pursue the consignee for the amount.

Cash on delivery means that the carrier is expected to collect a specified sum when delivering the goods. The assessment therefore starts with the agreement, the consignment note and the actual delivery process. The agreed amount must be identifiable from the transport records.

This article deals exclusively with cash on delivery in international road carriage under the CMR. General freight payment, loss or damage to the goods and bank guarantees require separate assessments. The focus is the collection duty, the sender’s compensation claim, the carrier’s recourse against the consignee and the relevant evidence.

Article 21 CMR requires the carrier to have been expected to collect a cash on delivery charge under the carriage contract. The duty therefore arises from the specific transport agreement and its implementation. An unpaid invoice between sender and consignee does not by itself turn a shipment into a cash on delivery shipment.

The first review should compare the order, order confirmation, CMR consignment note, invoice and delivery instructions. Article 6 paragraph 2 point c CMR identifies the amount of cash on delivery charges as a possible consignment-note entry. If the amount is missing or the documents conflict, the agreement must be reconstructed from the complete communication record.

The guide to CMR consignment notes supports the review of entries and records. Cash on delivery remains a distinct issue: it concerns collection of a sum at delivery.

If the goods are handed to the consignee even though the agreed cash on delivery charge was not collected, Article 21 CMR applies. The carrier must compensate the sender. The statutory ceiling is the amount of the cash on delivery charge.

The claim depends on the actual handover and the omitted collection. A delivery receipt naming the consignee, the time of handover, the payment status and the carrier’s communications belong in the transport file. An accounting difference without a link to the particular shipment will generally not establish the facts on its own.

Compensation under Article 21 CMR concerns the missing cash on delivery payment. Damage to the goods, delay in delivery and an unpaid freight claim raise different questions. Those items should be stated separately in the account.

Article 21 CMR limits compensation to the cash on delivery amount. The relevant figure is the sum that the carrier should have collected from the consignee under the carriage contract. The goods value or the total invoice may be higher and does not automatically increase this ceiling.

The amount must be supported by reliable records. These can include the cash on delivery entry in the consignment note, the order confirmation, the invoice, the payment instruction and the sender’s accounting records. If documents state different amounts, the last binding agreement must be identified.

Article 7 paragraph 1 point b CMR also makes the sender responsible for the consequences of inaccurate or inadequate particulars under Article 6 paragraph 2 CMR. The sender should therefore provide consistent cash on delivery information. A claim against the carrier should not be based on an amount fixed unilaterally only after delivery.

The evidence should connect three facts: the collection duty, the delivery and the missing payment. The consignment note often records the intended amount. The delivery receipt records the handover. Payment statements, collection reports and communication with the carrier show whether collection took place.

Digital shipment records, driver reports, settlement statements and messages from the consignee may add important detail. Each record should be assigned to the shipment number, order and date. Where cash payment to a driver is alleged, check precisely who is said to have received which amount and when.

A written complaint should identify the transport, the cash on delivery amount and the missing collection. It should reach the carrier in a provable manner. The article on delivery obstacles deals with different delivery problems but can complement the chronology of the handover.

Article 21 CMR expressly leaves the carrier’s action against the consignee unaffected. The carrier may therefore compensate the sender and then assess whether the cash on delivery amount can be claimed from the consignee. The sender’s compensation claim and the carrier’s recourse are separate directions of claim.

For recourse, it must be established that the consignee received the goods and owed the payment under the relevant agreement. The carrier should document the delivery, the cash on delivery instruction, the outstanding amount and the payment request. Handover alone does not resolve every detail of the payment arrangement.

The sender should also assist with clarification. The consignment note, invoice, order records and messages to the consignee may show which amount was due at delivery. The records should distinguish the sale of the goods from the carriage contract.

The sender orders the carriage and provides the particulars from which the cash on delivery charge follows. The carrier performs the collection required by the carriage contract at delivery. The consignee receives the goods and owes the agreed amount under the applicable contractual relationship.

The roles should not be equated too quickly in a forwarding chain. The assessment depends on who assumed the international road carriage as carrier, which instruction was passed on and who delivered the goods. Subcarriers and forwarding agents must be classified from the actual contracts and activities.

A short role list helps the assessment. It should name the sender, contractual carrier, performing carrier, consignee, cash on delivery amount and available records. This makes clear who owed the collection duty and who claims payment.

Mixing the charge with the goods invoice: Article 21 CMR caps compensation at the agreed cash on delivery amount.

Reading the consignment note in isolation: The order, instructions, invoice and delivery receipt may all matter for the agreement.

Failing to prove delivery: Without a clear delivery record, it remains uncertain whether and to whom the goods were handed over.

Confusing recourse with compensation: The sender’s claim against the carrier and the carrier’s action against the consignee point in different directions.

Adding a higher amount after delivery: The ceiling follows the amount the carrier was to collect under the carriage contract.

Leaving inconsistent records unexplained: Different amounts and instructions must be assessed chronologically and contractually.

Secure the carriage order, CMR consignment note, cash on delivery instruction, invoice and delivery receipt first. Add the settlement statement, payment status, shipment history and all communication with the carrier and consignee.

Then create a short chronology: agreement of cash on delivery, acceptance of the goods, arrival, collection or failure to collect, delivery and complaint. Mark the amount due at delivery and distinguish it from freight, interest and other items.

Where amounts conflict, delivery is disputed or recourse is planned, the complete transport file should be reviewed early. Clear roles and records show whether the compensation claim under Article 21 CMR and the further direction of claim can be substantiated.

Receive new articles and legal information from the firm with BRANDaktuelle Rechtsnews. Subscribe to the newsletter.