Court Opinion

ID: 9564845
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 19:09:07.094555+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:19:10.006608
License: Public Domain

TRAYNOR, J.
I dissent.
The crucial document in this case is the airbill delivered by Saks’ agent to United at the Los Angeles Airport. The consignee of the goods was Saks’ San Francisco store. The airbill provided that, “Delivery will be made to the consignee at points where delivery service is available unless otherwise specified below." Saks’ agent did not specify otherwise. Instead, he circled the word “delivery,” inserted the street address of the San Francisco store, and under the printed words "instructions to carrier," wrote "Pls. a. m. Delivery."
From this evidence it is obvious, and counsel for plaintiff conceded in oral argument before this court, that Saks contemplated that the goods would be delivered to its San Francisco store, not left at the San Francisco Airport. Saks knew that United had no surface delivery service, and could not carry the goods to the San Francisco store itself. The only reasonable conclusion is that Saks and United understood that when the goods arrived at’the San Francisco Airport, United would obtain a carrier to take the goods to the store. On behalf of Saks, and as authorized by Saks, United entered into a contract with defendant for the delivery of the goods to their contemplated destination.
What were the terms of that contract ? The evidence shows without conflict that the airbill placed in the hands of United and passed on to the surface carrier was the only instruction from Saks. It was the voice of Saks in the negotiations with defendant. When defendant’s agent accepted the goods, he receipted the airbill and took a copy of it. Defendant reasonably concluded that the value declared in the airbill was the value Saks was willing to place on the goods throughout their carriage to the San Francisco store. Saks should not now be allowed to claim that it meant otherwise than its own actions reasonably indicated.
I would modify the judgment by reducing it to $50 and affirm it as so modified.
Gibson, C. J., and Spence, J., concurred.