Sender’s right of disposal under the CMR: stop carriage or change the consignee

During an international road carriage, circumstances may change: the sender wants to stop the goods, send them to another address or have them delivered to another consignee. Under Article 12 CMR, this is not merely an operational message but the exercise of a legally structured right of disposal.

The right is neither unlimited nor always capable of immediate implementation. The relevant questions are who issued the instruction, how far the carriage has progressed, which consignment note is available and whether the change can be carried out without disrupting the carrier’s ongoing operations.

This article explains which instructions Article 12 CMR covers, when the sender’s right of disposal ends and how a change of delivery place or consignee should be documented by senders and carriers.

The CMR generally applies to paid contracts for carriage of goods by road where the place of taking over and the designated delivery place are in different countries and at least one of them is a contracting country. The residence or nationality of the parties is not decisive for that scope.

The right of disposal under Article 12 CMR is connected with that contract of carriage. It concerns the goods during carriage and an instruction to the carrier. A general right to amend every forwarding order cannot automatically be treated as the CMR right of disposal.

For domestic carriage or a different contractual classification, the applicable national rules and the specific contract must be examined separately. The overview of the CMR transport contract supports this first distinction.

Article 12(1) CMR identifies three typical forms of exercise. The sender may ask the carrier to stop the goods in transit, change the place where delivery is to take place or deliver the goods to a consignee other than the one named in the consignment note.

The instruction should not state only the desired result. It must identify the shipment and the new place or consignee precisely. In a request to stop carriage, the message should also address the current location of the goods, the requested next measure and the point at which a further decision is needed.

A message saying “please reroute” leaves important questions open. A complete new address, contact person, time window and shipment or consignment-note reference are safer. Changes to customs, security or temperature requirements also need a separate feasibility check.

The general guidance on forwarding orders and instructions provides useful documentation context. This article focuses on the right of disposal within a CMR contract.

Under Article 12(2) CMR, the sender’s right ends when the second copy of the consignment note is handed to the consignee or when the consignee exercises the right under Article 13(1) CMR. From that point, the carrier must obey the consignee’s orders.

The changeover does not depend only on whether the truck has reached the destination. The relevant facts are which consignment-note copy was handed over and whether the consignee actually exercised the separate right. Record those events with the time, person and supporting document.

Article 12(3) CMR also allows the consignee to have the right of disposal from the time the consignment note is drawn up if the sender has made the relevant entry in that note. Such an entry changes the authority check and must not be overlooked.

Every later instruction should therefore be tested against the actual consignment-note position. The rules on a CMR delivery obstacle concern another phase, but may become relevant if a new instruction can no longer be carried out in time.

A person exercising the right of disposal must, under Article 12(5)(a) CMR, produce the first copy of the consignment note with the new instruction entered on it. The person must also indemnify the carrier against the costs, loss and damage involved in carrying out the instruction.

The indemnity is not a blank cheque. It concerns the consequences of carrying out the particular instruction. The message should therefore state the requested change, the measures that may be required and how additional costs are to be recorded and assigned.

If the first copy is missing or its entry cannot be traced, implementation carries a material risk. Emails and telephone notes may prove the communication, but they do not automatically replace the first-copy requirement stated in Article 12 CMR.

The shipment-document checklist supports preparation before handover. It does not replace the assessment of whether the specific instruction is formally and practically permissible under Article 12 CMR.

Article 12(5)(b) CMR requires that the instruction still be possible when it reaches the person who must carry it out. It must also not interfere with the normal working of the carrier’s undertaking or prejudice the senders or consignees of other consignments.

This does not mean that every operational difficulty defeats the instruction. The carrier should establish the transport status, handovers already arranged and the effects of the change. Only then can it assess whether a new address or consignee can still be reached.

Under Article 12(5)(c) CMR, an instruction must not result in a division of the consignment. A request to send only part of the goods elsewhere therefore requires a separate check against the Convention and the particular contract.

If the carrier cannot carry out the instruction because of these limits, Article 12(6) CMR requires immediate notice to the person who gave it. The notice should state the reason for non-performance and any next option that can sensibly be discussed.

Article 12(7) CMR makes the carrier liable where an instruction is not carried out under the conditions provided for in the Convention or is carried out without requiring production of the first copy of the consignment note. The liability concerns the loss or damage caused by that conduct.

The review should therefore separate three points in time: receipt of the instruction, transmission to the person responsible for carrying it out and the actual measure. The consignment-note copy, entry, indemnity and any reason for non-performance should be preserved as well.

A deviation from the original delivery place does not by itself prove liability. It remains necessary to establish that Article 12 CMR applied, that the person was entitled to give the instruction, that the conditions were met and what concrete loss or damage followed.

Loss, damage or delay may also engage other CMR provisions. The CMR liability check helps structure the first information about the carriage, damage and available records.

Confusing consignee and sender: Check whether the second copy was handed over or the consignee has already exercised the right under Article 13 CMR.

Rerouting by telephone only: Record the shipment, time, new address or consignee and the content of the instruction in writing.

Failing to request the first copy: Carrying out an instruction without the required copy can create separate carrier liability.

Promising an impossible change: Location, existing arrangements, normal operations and effects on other consignments must be checked first.

Overlooking a division of the consignment: An instruction must not silently split the goods in a way excluded by Article 12(5)(c) CMR.

Leaving costs and indemnity open: Additional expenses and the indemnity should be linked to the particular instruction.

First secure the current consignment note, the first and second copies, the location of the goods and the previous communication. Record who gave the new instruction, when it arrived and what precise change was requested.

The carrier should assess feasibility, effects on normal operations, possible prejudice to other consignments, costs and any division of the goods. If the instruction cannot be carried out, the instructing person must be notified without delay and with a traceable reason.

Where the value is high, authority is disputed, a consignment-note copy has already been handed over or liability is at issue, the complete transport file should be reviewed promptly. Mag. Bernhard Brandauer, Austrian attorney-at-law, will discuss the next sensible steps with you.

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