Freight Forwarder and Storage Charges: Who Pays When the Official Tariff Is Not Respected?

Picture the scene: you are a trader in Saint-Malo, specialising in importing Czech sugar. You entrust a Polish freight forwarder with storing your goods in a Polish port. The storage tariff is agreed in advance with the port authorities. But surprise: the final invoice is much higher than expected. The forwarder claims the difference from you. Who must pay? The seller? The buyer? The forwarder? This is precisely the question the French Supreme Court decided in 1974. And the answer is surprisingly protective of intermediaries.

What does the law say? In matters of transport and storage of goods, the freight forwarder (the person who arranges transport and storage) acts on behalf of the buyer. He advances the costs, then seeks reimbursement. But what happens if the actual costs exceed the agreed tariff? Can the buyer refuse to pay the excess on the ground that the forwarder should have negotiated a better tariff? The French Supreme Court answered: no, if the excess is due to a discriminatory application of the tariff by the port authorities, the forwarder is not responsible.

This decision, although old, remains relevant for all players in the logistics chain: commission agents, freight forwarders, importers, exporters. It sets a clear rule: the person who advances costs on behalf of another can claim reimbursement, unless he has committed a personal fault. And fault is not presumed. Analysis of a landmark decision.

The Facts: An Everyday Story

We are in the 1970s. A Polish company, Spedrapid, specialised in transit and storage, stores in the port of Gdynia (Poland) Czech sugar purchased by a commission agent approved by the Paris Stock Exchange, the company Sucres et Denrées. This commission agent acts on behalf of French buyers. The storage tariff is normally fixed between the Polish port authorities and the Compagnie des Commissionnaires Agréés. But in this case, the port authorities apply a discriminatory tariff, higher for this batch of sugar than for similar goods. Spedrapid advances the costs, then claims reimbursement from Sucres et Denrées. The latter refuses, arguing that Spedrapid should have challenged the tariff or obtained a more favourable application. The case goes to court.

The Paris Commercial Court rules in favour of the forwarder. The Paris Court of Appeal confirms. Sucres et Denrées appeals to the French Supreme Court. It argues that Spedrapid breached its duty of diligence by not checking the applicable tariff and not negotiating a reduction. But the Supreme Court dismisses the appeal: the forwarder does not have to bear the consequences of a discriminatory application of the tariff by the port authorities, which he could not control. The decision is final.

The Reasoning of the Court — Analysed

The French Supreme Court bases its decision on the general principle that the person who advances costs on behalf of another is entitled to reimbursement, provided that those costs were necessary and that the agent (here, the forwarder) did not commit any fault. In this case, the lower courts found that Spedrapid could not be held responsible for the discriminatory application of the tariff by the port authorities. It matters not whether that application was based on a restrictive interpretation of the tariff: the forwarder had no means of preventing it.

Specifically, the Court recalls that the forwarder is an agent (Article 1984 of the Civil Code: a mandate is an act by which one person gives another the power to do something for the principal and in his name). He must carry out his mission with diligence, but he is not held to an obligation of result as to the exact amount of costs, especially when those costs are set by a third party (the port authorities) over which he has no influence. The Court therefore rejects the buyer's argument that Spedrapid should have "obtained more favourable conditions": that was not possible in this case.

This decision is part of consistent case law that protects intermediaries against the risk of tariff variations imposed by administrations or monopolies. It confirms that the forwarder is not an insurer of the final cost: he must simply act as a reasonable person (reasonable diligence). If the excess is due to an external cause, he can claim reimbursement.

What This Means for You — Practically

For freight forwarders and commission agents: this decision allows you to claim the actual costs you have advanced, even if they exceed the agreed tariff, provided you have not committed any fault. However, you must prove that the excess was beyond your control (for example, a tariff imposed by port authorities). Keep all evidence of your steps to negotiate or challenge tariffs.

For importers and buyers: you cannot refuse to reimburse costs advanced by your forwarder solely because they are higher than expected. You must prove that the forwarder committed a fault (for example, by choosing an unnecessarily expensive provider without reason). In practice, a client in Rennes recently told me of a similar case: a forwarder had stored goods in a warehouse whose tariff increased without notice. The buyer had to pay the excess, failing to prove negligence on the part of the forwarder.

For insurers and legal advisors: this decision highlights the importance of drafting transport and storage contracts carefully. Include a clause stating that actual costs will be charged, with a cap or an obligation to consult in advance in case of excess. This will avoid many disputes.

Four Tips to Avoid This Type of Dispute

• Draft a clear contract: state that the forwarder will charge actual costs, but must inform the buyer of any significant excess compared to the estimated tariff. An email or registered letter is valid evidence.
• Keep supporting documents: invoices, official tariffs, correspondence with port authorities. In case of dispute, you must prove that the excess was not your fault.
• Negotiate in advance: if you are a forwarder, try to obtain a written commitment from the port authorities on the applicable tariff. If you are a buyer, ask your forwarder to provide the reference tariff before the operation.
• Act promptly: if you notice an abnormal tariff, challenge it without delay. In this case, Spedrapid had notified the port administration, but without success. This diligence was recognised by the courts.

Further Analysis: Related Case Law and Developments

Before this decision, case law was sometimes hesitant. Some decisions had placed on the forwarder an obligation of result regarding the cost of transport or storage. For example, a 1965 judgment of the Rouen Court of Appeal had ordered a forwarder to reimburse the tariff difference to his client on the ground that he should have chosen another provider. The French Supreme Court ended this uncertainty in 1974.

Since then, the trend is consistent: the forwarder is not an insurer of the cost. Other decisions have extended this principle to customs, clearance and handling costs. Thus, in a decision of 12 March 1991 (No. 89-16.482), the French Supreme Court held that a forwarder can claim storage charges even if the client was not informed of the exact amount, provided those charges were unavoidable.

For the future, with the digitalisation of exchanges and the multiplication of intermediaries, this rule remains protective. It prevents forwarders from bearing alone the tariff risks imposed by monopolies or administrations. However, caution is required: if the forwarder freely chooses a provider without comparing prices, his liability may be engaged.

Key Takeaways

1. Who must pay storage charges when the tariff is exceeded? The buyer (the principal) must reimburse the forwarder, unless the latter committed a fault.
2. What should I do if I am a forwarder and actual costs exceed the estimate? Invoice the actual costs, keep evidence of your diligence (challenging the tariff, informing the client), and if payment is refused, take the case to court.
3. Can I, as a buyer, refuse to pay the excess? Yes, if you prove that the forwarder chose an unnecessarily expensive provider without justification, or failed to comply with contractual obligations. But the mere fact that the official tariff is different is not enough.
4. What are the time limits for action? The forwarder's claim for payment is subject to a 5-year limitation period (general rule). In transport matters, the period is often one year (Article L. 133-6 of the Commercial Code). Consult a lawyer promptly.
5. What is the relevance of this decision for individuals? Although the case concerns professionals, the principle applies to any mandate: the person who advances costs for another must be reimbursed, unless he is at fault. For example, a neighbour who pays the water bill for a condominium can claim from the other co-owners.

In a similar situation? A 30-minute initial consultation with Maître Zakine (€45) can save you months of litigation — and often much more. Book an appointment →