Although it is sometimes said that abnormal transit temperatures “void” the warranty of suitable shipping condition, this is simply not true. A careful reading of the definition (above), as well as PACA precedent, makes it clear that the seller’s responsibility is to load product in suitable shipping condition at shipping point before the product is shipped.
This responsibility exists regardless of the conditions in transit; however, for practical purposes, it is often difficult for the buyer at contract destination to show the seller failed to load product in suitable shipping condition when transportation conditions were abnormal. There are times, however, when a breach of the warranty of suitable shipping condition can be shown despite abnormal transporta-tion conditions.
Meanwhile, transportation providers have a separate but related duty under the contract of carriage to provide normal transportation service and conditions, including maintaining proper air temperatures inside the trailer while the produce is in their possession.
Here, the temperature reports from the reefer unit and the portable recorder both indicate that air temperatures in the trailer were far below the temperature instructions provided by the shipper, and far below any temperature that could be considered normal for fresh produce. Consequently, we must conclude that the carrier breached the contract of carriage by failing to properly maintain air temperatures in transit.
That said, however, and as explained above, our determination that the carrier breached the contract of carriage does not preclude a finding that the shipper failed to load these strawberries in suitable shipping condition in breach of the sales agreement. Therefore, the pivotal question presented in this dispute is, did the temperature abnormalities recorded during this trip cause or materially contribute to the excessive levels of defects reported by the USDA inspection certificate?
If so, then it follows that the shipper complied with the warranty of suitable shipping condition, and that the losses resulted from the carrier’s failure to properly maintain air temperatures in transit. But if not, then it follows that the shipper failed to load the strawberries in suitable shipping condition, and that this—rather than the carrier’s failure to properly maintain transit temperatures—damaged the berries and caused the losses incurred.
We believe there are a number of points to be made in support of the carrier’s position that the temperature abnormalities did not cause the excessive levels of defects shown on the inspection certificate. First, although the air temperatures in the trailer were far colder than they should have been during the trip, we think it is important to remember that these berries were not directly exposed to the cold air in the trailer because they were shielded by the modified atmosphere created inside the plastic bags used to cover the pallets for treatment with Techtrol.
