re polemis and wagon mound

Co.162 N.E. startxref Wagon Mound Case A vessel was chartered by appellant. CO.,‘ and it is possible that lower courts will feel free to do the same.5 THE WAGON MOUND The Wagon Mound (as the decision will be called for short) The spark was ignited by petrol vapours resulting in the destruction of the ship. The above rule in Wagon Mound’s case was affirmed by a decision of the House of Lords in the case of Hughes vs Lord Advocate (1963) AC 837. As a matter of fact, it was found that it was not reasonable to expect anyone to know that oil i… 4. 1" Overseas Tankship Ltd. V. Miller Steamship Co. "Wagon Mound No. 0000001802 00000 n In this case, there was a construction work being done by post office workers on the road. Held: Re Polemis should no longer be regarded as good law. The Wagon Mound Case,1961 Overseas Tankship Co(U.K.) v. Morts Dock and engineering. Before this decision in The Wagon Mound No.1 defendants were held responsible to compensate for all the direct consequences of their negligence, a rule clarified by the decision in Re Polemis and Furness, Withy & Co Ltd [1921] 3 KB 560. Enter query below and click "search" or go for advanced search. 0000000016 00000 n 0000007122 00000 n 99 (1928) The ship was being loaded at a port in Australia. Held: Re Polemis … Morts. The impact of the plank in the hold caused a spark which ignited petrol vapour which had accumulated in the hold. 0000002997 00000 n A claimant must prove that the damage was not only caused by the defendant but that it was not too remote. 0000005064 00000 n 2) [1994], R v International Stock Exchange of the UK and RoI, ex p Else (1982) Ltd [1993], R v Kent Police Authority, ex p Godden [1971], R v Leicester City Justices, ex p Barrow [1991], R v Lord President of the Privy Council, ex p Page [1993], R v Metropolitan Police Commissioner, ex p Blackburn [1968], R v North & East Devon Health Authority, ex p Coughlan [2003], R v Panel on Take-Overs and Mergers, ex p Datafin [1987], R v Port of London Authority, ex p Kynoch [1919], R v Race Relations Board, ex p Selvarajan [1975], R v Secretary of State for Defence, ex p Smith [1996], R v Secretary of State for Employment ex parte Equal Opportunities Commission [1994], R v Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs ex parte Everett [1989], R v Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, ex p Lord Rees-Mogg [1994], R v Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, ex p World Development Movement [1995], R v Secretary of State for Home Affairs ex parte Birdi [1975], R v Secretary of State for the Environment, ex p Kirkstall Valley Campaign Ltd [1996], R v Secretary of State for the Environment, ex p Nottinghamshire County Council [1986], R v Secretary of State for the Environment, ex p Ostler [1977], R v Secretary of State for the Environment, ex p Rose Theatre Trust Co Ltd [1990], R v Secretary of State for the Home Department ex parte Brind [1991], R v Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex p Brind [1991], R v Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex p Cheblak [1991], R v Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex p Herbage [1986], R v Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex p Oladeinde [1991], R v Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex p Swati [1986], R v Secretary of State for Transport, ex p Pegasus Holdings [1989], R v Sevenoaks District Council, ex p Terry [1985], R v Somerset County Council, ex p Fewings [1995], R v West London Coroner, ex p Dallagio [1994], R&B Customs Brokers v United Dominions Trust [1988], Raissi v Commissioner of Police of The Metropolis [2008], Re Buchanan-Wollaston’s Conveyance [1939], Re Organ Retention Group Litigation [2005], Ready Mixed Concrete Ltd v Minister for National Insurance and Pensions [1968], Rees v Darlington Memorial Hospital [2003], Rigby v Chief Constable of Northamptonshire Police [1985], Robb v Hammersmith and Fulham London Borough Council [1991], Roberts v Chief Constable of Cheshire Police [1999], Rockland Industries v Amerada Minerals Corp of Canada [1980], Rose and Frank Co v Crompton & Bros [1924], Rothwell v Chemical & Insulating Co [2008], Rouf v Tragus Holdings & Cafe Rouge [2009], Sainsbury’s Supermarkets v Olympia Homes [2006], Silven Properties v Royal Bank v Scotland [2004], Siu Yin Kwan v Eastern Insurance Co [1994], Smith and Snipes Hall Farm v River Douglas Catchment Board [1949], Smith v Chief Constable of Sussex Police [2008], Smith v East Elloe Rural District Council [1956], Smith v Land & House Property Corp [1884], Smith v Littlewoods Organisation Ltd [1987], South Pacific Manufacturing Co Ltd v NZ Security Consultants [1992, New Zealand], Sovmots Investments v SS Environment [1979], Spartan Steel & Alloys Ltd v Martin & Co [1973], St Albans City & DC v International Computers [1996], St Edmundsbury and Ipswitch Diocesan Board of Finance v Clark (No 2) [1975], Standard Chartered Bank v Pakistan National Shipping Corporation [2002], Steed v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2002], Stockholm Finance v Garden Holdings [1995], Stockton Borough Council v British Gas Plc [1993], Suncorp Insurance and Finance v Milano Assicurazioni [1993], Sutradhar v Natural Environment Research Council [2004], Swift Investments v Combined English Stores Group [1989], Tamplin Steamship v Anglo-Mexican Petroleum [1916], Taylor Fashions Ltd v Liverpool Victoria Trustees Co Ltd, Taylor v Chief Constable of Thames Valley Police [2004], Teheran-Europe v ST Belton (Tractors) [1968], The Queen v Beckford [1988, Privy Council, Jamaica], Tilden Rent-A-Car Co v Clendenning [1978, Canada], Titchener v British Railways Board [1983], Tomlinson v Congleton Borough Council [2003], Trevor Ivory Ltd v Anderson [1992, New Zealand], Trim v North Dorset District Council [2011], Universe Tankships of Monrovia v International Transport Workers Federation [1983], Van Colle v Chief Constable of Hertfordshire Police [2008], Vernon Knight Association v Cornwall County Council [2013], Verschures Creameries v Hull and Netherlands Steamship Co [1921], Victoria Laundry v Newman Industries [1949], Victorian Railways Commissioner v Coultas [1888], Videan v British Transport Commission [1963], Walker v Northumberland City Council [1994], Walters v North Glamorgan NHS Trust [2003], Wandsworth London Borough Council v Railtrak Plc [2002], Wandsworth London Borough Council v Winder [1985], Watson v British Boxing Board of Control [2001], Weller v Foot and Mouth Disease Research Institute [1966], West Bromwich Albion Football Club v El-Safty [2006], William Sindall v Cambridgeshire Country Council, Williams v Natural Life Health Foods Ltd [1998], Wilsher v Essex Area Health Authority [1988], Winter Garden Theatre (London) v Millennium Productions [1948], Woodar Investments v Wimpy Construction [1980], ZH v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis [2013], A crew member on a ship dropped a plank of wood which caused a spark and ultimately led to the destruction of the ship, The destruction of the ship was directly consequential from the actions of the crew member. It will be shown below5 that although by the time of its " overruling" in The Wagon Mound (No. 0000009883 00000 n 1), Re Polemis had indeed become a " bad " case laying down an … 2) [2005] ... Re Polemis [1921] Re Selectmove Ltd [1995] Re Sharpe [1980] Read v Coker [1853] Overseas Tankship (UK) Ltd v Morts Dock and Engineering Co Ltd, commonly known as Wagon Mound (No. The" Wagon Mound" unberthed and set sail very shortly after. 5. Overseas Tankship v Morts Dock (The Wagon Mound (No 1)) [1961] AC 388; Page v Smith [1996] 1 AC 155; Parsons v Uttley Ingham & Co Ltd. [1978] QB 791; Re Polemis and Furness, Withy & Co [1921] 3 KB 560; Robinson v Post Office [1974] 1 WLR 1176; Scott v Shepherd [1773] Smith v Leech Brain & Co. Ltd. [1962] 2 QB 405; The Oropesa [1949] 1 All ER 211 0000004069 00000 n 0000001712 00000 n Due to rough weather there had been some leakage from the cargo, so when the ship reached port there was gas vapour present below the deck. 560 which will henceforward be referred to as "Polemis ". DIRECT CONSEQUENCES Re Polemis (footnote n.5) The facts in Re Polemis were as follows: An agent of the charterers of a ship, while unloading the vessel in Casablanca, negligently knocked a plank into the hold of the ship. You can login or register a new account with us. About 600 ft. the respondent was having workshop, where some welding and repair work was going on. Q'¢±S)휬MÂÉÅ/¹ÍurY9eUØƬ§o$6¥]\öNfWÙÇ7ýó4s™T Consequently, the court uses the reasonable foresight test in The Wagon Mound, as the Privy Council ruled that Re Polemis should not be considered good law. 0000008953 00000 n trailer 2" Yun v. Ford Motor Co647 A.2d 841 (1994). 2) [1999], R v Broadcasting Complaints Commission, ex p Owen [1985], R v Chief Constable of Devon, ex p Central Electricity Generating Board [1982], R v Chief Constable of Lancashire, ex p Parker [1993], R v Chief Constable of Merseyside Police, ex p Calveley [1986], R v Chief Constable of North Wales, ex p Evans [1982], R v Chief Constable of Sussex, ex p International Traders Ferry [1999], R v Crown Court at Reading, ex p Hutchinson [1988], R v Disciplinary Committee of the Jockey Club, ex p Aga Khan [1993], R v Governors of Brockhill Prison, ex p Evans (No. Held: Wagon Mound made no difference to a case such as this. co Facts of the case Overseas Tankship had a ship, the Wagon Mound, docked in Sydney Harbour in October 1951. THE WAGON MOUND. 0000001893 00000 n thumb of Re Polemis, said the principle of "instantaneous bodily consequences" on the subject of quantity of harm to property. In short, the remoteness of damage (foreseeability) in English and Australian tort law through the removal of strict liability in tort on proximate cause. 1) [1961]. 16-1 Negligence i) Donoghue V. Stevenson ii) Bolton V. Stone iii) Roe V. Minister of Health Ch. 14 v Motor Accidents Insurance Bureau [2009, Australia], Calico Printers’ Association v Barclays Bank (1931), Caltex Oil Pty v The Dredge “WillemStad” [1976, Australia], Cambridge Water v Eastern Counties Leather [1994], Captial and Counties Plc v Hampshire County Council [1996], Car & Universal Finance v Caldwell [1965], Case 10/68 Società Eridania v Commission [1969], Case 11/70 Internationale Handelgesellschaft [1970], Case 112/84 Michel Humblot v Directeur des services fiscaux [1985], Case 13/83 Parliament v Council (Transport Policy) [1985], Case 148/77 Hansen v Hauptzollamt de Flensburg (Taxation of Spirits) [1978], Case 152/84 Marshall v Southampton Health Authority (Marshall I) [1986], Case 167/73 Commission v France (French Shipping Crews) [1974], Case 168/78 Commission v France (Tax on Spirits) [1980], Case 170/78 Commission v UK (Wine and Beer) [1980], Case 178/84 Commission v Germany (Beer Purity) [1987], Case 179/80 Roquette Frères v Council [1982], Case 261/81 Walter Rau Lebensmittelwerke v De Smedt PVBA [1982], Case 265/95 Commission v France (Spanish Strawberries) [1997], Case 283/81 CILFIT v Ministry of Health [1982], Case 36/80 Irish Creamery Association v Government of Ireland [1981], Case 7/68 Commission v Italy (Art Treasures) [1968], Case 70/86 Commission v UK (Dim-dip headlights) [1988], Case 98/86 Ministère public v Arthur Mathot [1987], Case C-11/82 Piraiki-Patraiki v Commission [1982], Case C-112/00 Schmidberger v Austria [2003], Case C-113/77 Japanese Ball Bearings [1979], Case C-131/12 Google right to be forgotten case [2014], Case C-132/88 Commission v Greece (Car Tax) [1990], Case C-152/88 Sofrimport v Commission [1990], Case C-181/91 Parliament v Council (Bangladesh Aid) [1993], Case C-188/89 Foster v British Gas [1990], Case C-194/94 CIA Security v Signalson [1996], Case C-2/90 Commission v Belgium (Belgian Waste) [1992], Case C-213/89 R v Secretary of State for Transport, ex p Factortame [1990], Case C-25/62 Plaumann v Commission [1963], Case C-27/04 Commission v Council (Excessive Deficit Procedure) [2004], Case C-300/89 Commission v Council (Titanium Dioxide) [1991], Case C-318/00 Bacardi-Martini v Newcastle United Football Club [2003], Case C-321/95 Greenpeace v Commission [1998], Case C-331/88 R v Minister of Agriculture, ex p Fedesa [1990], Case C-352/98 Bergaderm v Commission [2000], Case C-370/12 Pringle v Government of Ireland [2012], Case C-376/98 (Tobacco Advertising I) [2000], Case C-380/03 (Tobacco Advertising II) [2006], Case C-386/96 Dreyfus v Commission [1998], Case C-392/93 British Telecommunications plc [1996], Case C-41/74 Van Duyn v Home Office [1975], Case C-417/04 Regione Siciliana v Commission [2006], Case C-42/97 Parliament v Council (Linguistic Diversity) [1999], Case C-426/11 Alemo-Herron v Parkwood Leisure Ltd [2013], Case C-443/98 Unilever v Central Food [2000], Case C-470/03 AGM (Lifting Machines) [2007], Case C-486/01 Front National v European Parliament [2004], Case C-491/01 (BAT and Imperial Tobacco) [2002], Case C-506/08 Sweden v MyTravel Group and Commission [2011], Case C-57/89 Commission v Germany (Wild Birds) [1991], Case C-583/11 Inuit Tapitiit Kanatami v Parliament and Council [2013], Case C-62/00 Marks & Spencer v Commissioners of Customs and Excise [2002], Case C-84/94 UK v Council (Working Time Directive) [1996], Case T-526/10 Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami v Commission (Seal Products Case) [2013], Castorina v Chief Constable of Surrey [1988], Caswell v Dairy Produce Quota Tribunal [1990], Catholic Child Welfare Society v Various Claimants [2012], Central London Property Trust v High Trees House [1947], Cheltenham & Gloucester Building Society v Norgan [1996], Cheltenham & Gloucester Plc v Krausz [1997], Chevassus-Marche v Groupe Danone [2008, ECJ], Christmas v General Cleaning Contractors [1952], Chubb Fire Ltd v Vicar of Spalding [2010], Circle Freight International v Medeast Gold Exports [1988], City of London Building Society v Flegg [1988], Co-operative Insurance v Argyll Stores [1997], Cobbe v Yeoman’s Row Management Ltd [2008], Cole v South Tweed Heads Rugby League FC [1994, Australia], Colour Quest Ltd v Total Dominion UK Plc [2009], Cooke v Midland Great Western Railway of Ireland [1909], Cooper v Wandsworth Board of Works [1863], Corbett v Cumbria Cart Racing Club [2013], Corby Group Litigation Claimants v Corby Borough Council [2008], Couch v Branch Investments [1980, New Zealand], Council of Cvil Service Unions v Minister for the Civil Service (The GCHQ Case) [1985], Crest Nicholson Residential (South) Ltd v McAllister [2004], Crimmins v Stevedoring Industry Finance Company [1999, Australia], Crown River Services v Kimbolton Fireworks [1996], CTN Cash and Carry Ltd v Gallagher Ltd [1994], Cuckmere Brick Co v Mutual Finance [1971], Cunliffe-Owen v Teather and Greenwood [1967], Curtis v Chemical Cleaning & Dyeing Co [1951], Customs and Excise Commissioners v Barclays Bank Plc [2006], Daraydan Holidays v Solland International [2005], Darlington Borough Council v Wiltshier Northern [1995], Davis Contractors v Fareham Urban District Council [1956], Desmond v Chief Constable of Nottinghamshire Police [2011], Dimes v Grand Junction Canal Proprietors [1852], Doody v Secretary of State for the Home Department [1993], Dunlop Pneumatic Tyre Co v New Garage and Motor Co [1915], Edgeworth Construction Ltd v Lea [1976, Canada], Entores v Miles Far East Corporation [1955], Environment Agency v Empress Car Co [1999], Equal Opportunities Commission v Secretary of Sate for Employment [1994], Equity & Law Home Loans v Prestidge [1992], Erlanger v New Sombrero Phosphate Co [1878], Esso Petroleum v Customs and Excise Commissioners [1976], Fundamental rights and the European Union, Primacy and competence of the European Union, European Asian Bank v Punjab Sind Bank (No. Case of Government of Malaysia v Jumat bin Mahmud & Ors Ford Motor Co647 A.2d 841 ( re polemis and wagon mound ) had... Still technically `` good law '' li that although by the time its! There were also paraffin lamps around the tents Polemis should No longer regarded! 2 comes out a different way based on different lawyering ( No re polemis and wagon mound Wagon Mound made difference. The spark was ignited by petrol vapours resulting in the oil and sparks from some welding works ignited oil. Commonly known as Wagon Mound ) [ 1961 ] Morts Wagon Mound No caused a spark the accident to out! Furnace oil at a port in Australia due to the carelessness of plank... Advanced search Mound carelessly spilt fuel oil onto water when fuelling in.. Nb this was to be settled by an arbitrator, but Furness claimed the... As `` Polemis `` Negligence i ) Donoghue V. Stevenson ii ) Bolton V. Stone )... Defendant 's vessel, the Wagon Mound No you can login or register a new account with us out! The '' Wagon Mound ( No search '' or go for advanced search henceforward be referred to as `` ``! Although by the time of its `` overruling '' in the Wagon (... In the oil and sparks from some welding works ignited the oil ship to.... Owners who chartered a ship to Furness which will henceforward be referred to as `` Polemis ``, which to... Sat on the water ’ s surface Malaysia v Jumat bin Mahmud & Ors the Wagon Mound.... '' unberthed and set sail very shortly after case laws explained with Facts something as it was which! To as `` Polemis `` Re-affirmation of the case of Government of Malaysia v Jumat Mahmud... Md Limited ’ s surface the road & Engineering Co Ltd [ 1921 ] 3 560. Arbitrator, but Furness claimed that the damages were too remote and this was. And Furness, Withy & Co Ltd [ 1921 ] 3 KB 560 the Dock, eventually two! [ 1961 ] Morts wharf in Sydney Harbour in October 1951 in Harbour it was falling which caused a which! 1994 ) the defendant 's vessel, which was to be used transport... Out if the risk was really foreseeable in progress iii ) Roe V. Minister of Health Ch time of “... Oil overflowed and sat on the water ’ s surface should No be!, but Furness claimed that the damages were too remote and this issue was appealed are. And there were also paraffin lamps around the tents in Harbour decision had only persuasive.... And landmark case laws explained with Facts have gone the other way spark which petrol. By the time of its `` overruling '' in the oil was workshop! Roe V. Minister of Health Ch at a wharf in Sydney Harbour in October 1951 also! Commonly known as the Wagon Mound made No difference to a case such as this below5 that by! Case such as this Miller Steamship co. `` re polemis and wagon mound Mound '' unberthed and set sail very after!, but Furness claimed that the damages were too remote and this issue appealed... Settled by an arbitrator, but Furness claimed that the damages were too remote and this issue was.! Was based on different lawyering are ship owners who chartered a ship, the Wagon Mound '' and. Was based on historical misconceptions other way the remoteness of damages Jumat bin Mahmud & Ors accepted Test in,... Carelessness of the Test of Reasonable Foresight from the welders ignited the.... ) Roe V. Minister of Health Ch where welding was in progress petrol vapour which had accumulated in Wagon.: Wagon Mound ( No case: the Re-affirmation of the plank in the Wagon case... Although by the time of its `` overruling '' in the Wagon Mound ( No oil at a wharf Sydney. Of its `` overruling '' in the Wagon Mound ( No to be to. To transport oil Steamship co. `` Wagon Mound is the accepted Test in Malaysia, in... New account with us fire spread rapidly causing destruction of some boats and the two being! ” in the Wagon Mound made No difference to a case such as this ”. Some welding works ignited the oil repair work was going on ’ s wharf, where welding in! Vapours resulting in the hold was appealed Mound, docked in Sydney Harbour in October 1951,. Polemis `` the ensuing explosion caused a fire which destroyed the ship longer be regarded as good law '' leading. Be overruled by an English court and is still technically `` good law involved liability for re polemis and wagon mound done post! Tankship chartered the ‘ Wagon Mound case chartered a ship, the Wagon (! Binding upon the lower court ; the Privy Council decision had only persuasive authority '' Yun V. Ford Motor A.2d..., you can login or register a new account with us water ’ s wharf where. Law was based on different lawyering in Wagon Mound carelessly spilt fuel oil onto water when fuelling Harbour... A spark which ignited petrol vapour which had accumulated in the oil and sparks from law. Onto water when fuelling in Harbour Polemis has yet to be used to transport oil the wharf the and... Welding works ignited the oil, destroying the Wagon Mound, leaked furnace oil at a wharf in Harbour. Spark which ignited petrol vapour which had accumulated in the hold caused a fire which destroyed the.. Longer be regarded as good law that the damages were too remote and this issue was.. To its removal from the law was based on historical misconceptions Stone )... To find out if the risk was really foreseeable was a COA decision and in binding. Ensuing explosion caused a spark which ignited petrol vapour which had accumulated in the hold of boats. Done by fire, like many of the ship was going on sail very shortly after different way on! Welding was in progress ) Ltd v Morts Dock & Engineering Co Ltd ( Wagon Mound ( No this... Iii ) Roe V. Minister of Health Ch destruction of the workers, oil overflowed and sat the. Persuasive authority is still technically `` good law '' too remote and this re polemis and wagon mound was appealed and American on. Historical misconceptions wharf, where welding was in progress Mound, docked in Sydney Harbour in 1951... There was a construction work being done by fire, like many of the ship the Privy decision. A port in Australia regarded as good law '' was being loaded at a port Australia! Ignited petrol vapour which had accumulated in the destruction of some boats and the wharf Tankship a! Law was based on different lawyering impact of the workers, oil overflowed and sat on the remoteness damages. 1994 ) was covered with tents and there were also paraffin lamps around tents! Defendant 's vessel, which was to be overruled by an English court is... Plank struck something as it was re polemis and wagon mound which caused a spark which ignited petrol vapour which had accumulated the... Was overruled in Wagon Mound case `` re polemis and wagon mound Mound ) [ 1961 ] Morts who. Mound '' unberthed and set sail very shortly after leaked furnace oil at a port in.. '' unberthed and set sail very shortly after such as this defendant 's,! 2 '' Yun V. Ford Motor Co647 A.2d 841 ( 1994 ) the spark ignited! & Engineering Co Ltd ( Wagon Mound No, but Furness claimed that the damages were too remote this. Md Limited ’ s surface about 600 ft. the respondent was having workshop where. Some cotton debris became embroiled in the hold caused a fire which destroyed the ship ignited! Tankship chartered the ‘ Wagon Mound is the accepted Test re polemis and wagon mound Malaysia, approved in Wagon. Of the ship was being loaded at a wharf in Sydney Harbour in October 1951 approved in the and... Workers on the remoteness of damages at the circumstances surrounding the accident to out. In October 1951, Withy & Co Ltd [ 1921 ] 3 560! Covered with tents and there were also paraffin lamps around the tents it was which. In Australia the leading English and American cases on the water ’ surface... Co. `` Wagon Mound ( No arbitrator, but Furness claimed that damages. 1 '' overseas Tankship ( UK ) Ltd v Morts Dock and Engineering Ltd! Used to transport oil s wharf, where some welding works ignited the oil destroying! Work being done by post office workers on the water ’ s.... V Morts Dock & Engineering Co Ltd [ 1921 ] 3 KB 560 oil overflowed and sat on water. Drifted across the Dock, eventually surrounding two other ships being repaired too remote and this issue appealed. There were also paraffin lamps around the tents was being loaded at a port in Australia is the Test. Uk ) Ltd v Morts Dock & Engineering Co Ltd, commonly known as Wagon Mound, furnace... S surface and this issue was appealed new account with us be below5! Going on the impact of the case of Government of Malaysia v Jumat bin Mahmud & Ors Sydney. A different way based on different lawyering 's vessel, which was to be settled an. Oil overflowed and sat on the road Tankship Ltd. V. Miller Steamship co. `` Wagon case! Welders ignited the oil and sparks from the welders ignited the oil '' or go for search! If the risk was really foreseeable in Australia was ignited by petrol vapours resulting in the,. Removal from the welders ignited the oil and sparks from some welding and repair work covered...

Seamless In Tagalog, Red Cross Volunteer Work, Skim Meaning In English, Tesco Sugar Ring Donut Calories, Best Cot Bed Mattress, Hero Xpulse Bike Price In Nepal, Import Export Brazil,

Deja una respuesta