ASPECTS OF THE HAGUE RULES

ASPECTS OF THE HAGUE RULES

A COMPARATIVE STUDY

IN ENGLISH AND FRENCH LAW

by

MALCOLM ALISTAIR CLARKE

• MARTINUS NIJHOFF / THE HAGUE / 1976

© I976 by Martinus Nijhoff, The Hague, Netherlands All rights reserved, including the right to translate or to

l'epyoduce this book or parts thereof in any form

ISBN 978-94-011-8199-0 ISBN 978-94-011-8854-8 (eBook) DOI 10.1007/978-94-011-8854-8

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Table 0/ Cases XI

Table 0/ French Cases XVII

A bbreviations XXV

Pre/ace XXIX

PART ONE: THE SCOPE OF THE BRUSSELS CONVENTION I924

CHAPTER I. HISTORY OF THE BRUSSELS CONVENTION 3

I. The Origins of the Convention 3

2. The Lessons of History 6

CHAPTER 2. INTRODUCTION TO THE SCOPE OF THE BRUS-

SELS CONVENTION 8

I. Juridical Nature of the Convention 8

2. Apparent Scope of the Convention: Artic1e X 9

3. History of Artic1e X 9

4. Meaning of Artic1e XII

(i) Article X is not concerned with the scope of the Convention II

(ii) Article X imposes an insterstate obligation to give effect to the Convention 12

(iii) Article X as a 'Vorbehaltsklausel' 12

(iv) Article X as a model for a uniform conflicts rule 13

5. The Convention applies to both International and Domestic Contracts 16

6. Conc1usion 17

VI TABLE OF CONTENTS

CHAPTER 3. THE SCOPE OF THE CONVENTION IN THE LAW

OF ENGLAND 18

1. Introduction 18

2. History of Section 1, Cogsa 1924 18

3· The Failure of the English Formula for Uniformity 20

4· The Torni 21

5· The Vita F ood Case 22

6. The St. J oseph 23

7· Can the English Formula be Remedied? 24 (i) The doctrine of renvoi 24

(ii) Application of the lex loci contractus 25 (iii) Public policy 26

8. The Reform of Article X 28

CHAPTER 4. THE SCOPE OF THE CONVENTION IN THE LAW

OF FRANCE: INTRODUCTION 29

1. National and International Contracts 29

2. The Conflict of Texts at Domestic Level 30

3. The 'Brasiluso' Solution 3 1

4. Plan 32

CHAPTER 5. THE LIBERAL APPROACH 33

1. Early Attitudes of the Courts 33

2. The Cases taking a Liberal Approach before the Tribunaux 34 de Commerce

3. The Cases taking a Liberal Approach in the Cours d'Appel 36

4. The Academic Writers 37 (i) Niboyet and Sauvage 37

(ii) J ambu-Merlin 38 (iii) Rodiere 40

5. The Significance of the Liberal Solution 41

(i) The object of the Convention 41 (ii) International contracts in the conflict of laws 42

(iii) Should uniform law be confined to international contracts? 43

6. Conclusion 45

CHAPTER 6. THE VOY AGE TEST 47

1. Introduction 47

2. Introduction to the Cases Applying the Voyage Test 47

3. The Cases in the Lower Courts 49

TABLE OF CONTENTS VII

4. The Cases in the Higher Courts 52

5. Cases in which the Voyage Test was not Applied 54 6. The Cases in which the Voyage Test was Rejected 57 7. The Academic Writers 60

(i) Mezger and De J uglart 60

(ii) Prodromides, Jambu-Merlin and the implications of Article X 60 (iii) Guyon and the merits of the voyage test 63 (iv) Dubosc 67

8. Successive Transports 68

9. The Solution for Other Modes of Transport 70

CHAPTER 7. THE NATIONALITY TEST: THE PRELIMINARY

PROBLEM 73

I. Introduction 73

2. The Attitude of the Courts 74 (i) Reference to the parties to the contract 74

(ii) Reference to the parties in the bill of lading 79 (iii) Reference to the carrier and the shipper 79 (iv) Reference to the consignee 80 (v) Cases rejecting reference to the consignee 81

3. The Consignee must be known ab initio 82 4. Attitude of the Courts: Summary 83

5. The Academic Writers 84

CHAPTER 8. THE NATION ALITY TEST 86

I. Introduction 86

2. The Cases in the Tribunaux de Commerce 87 3. The Cases in the Cours d'Appel 88 4. The Cases in the Cour de Cassation 89 5. The Cases in which the Nationality Test was Rejected 90

6. The Academic Writers 9 1

7. Practical Considerations 92

8. The Ripert Solution 94

CHAPTER 9. THE DOUBLE RULE 96

I. Introduction 96

2. Authority that the Parties must be from HCPs 98

3. Cases Requiring that both Ports be in HCPs 100

4. Other Authority 102

(i) Other countries 102

VIII TABLE OF CONTENTS

(ii) Certainty 103 (iii) The academic writers 103 (iv) The Warsaw Convention 103

5. Conclusion 104

CHAPTER 10. REFORM OF ARTICLE X 105

1. The Conferences of the C.M.L at Rijeka and Stockholm 105

2. The Brussels Conference 106

3. Comment 107

4. The Future 108

PART TWO: DUE DILIGENCE TO MAKE THE SHIP SEAWORTHY

CHAPTER II. THE HISTORY OF THE CARRIER'S LIABILITY 113

I. Basic Liability of the Carrier - Phase I 113

2. Basic Liability of the Carrier - Phase 11 115

3· The ]ustification of Strict Liability 117

4· Exceptions to Liability II8 (i) Ex lege 118

5· Exceptions to Liability 122

(ii) Ex contractu 122

6. The Warranty of Seaworthiness 123 (i) Its existence 123

(ii) The concept 125 (iii) Duration 126 (iv) Proof 128

CHAPTER 12. THE SCHEME OF PROOF UNDER THE

CONVENTION 131

1. Seaworthiness in the Texts 131

2. The Answer in Outline 133 (i) The short route 133

(ii) The popularity of article IV rule 2(P) in France 136 (iii) The long route 138

3. Performance of Article III Rule I as a Condition Precedent to Exoneration 139

(i) The proposition in common law countries 139 (ii) The analogy with article III rule 2 140

(iii) France: Presomption de responsabilitA 142 (iv) Conclusion and comparison 148

TABLE OF CONTENTS IX

4. Article IV Rule I as an Excepted Peril 149 (i) The proposition 149

(ii) England 150 (iii) France 151 (iv) Criticism and comparison 155

5. Article IV Rule I as a Complement to Article III Rule I 159 (i) The need for precaution 159

(ii) The overriding effect of article III rule I 161 (iii) The overriding effect of faute in France 164 (iv) The systems contrasted 165

6. Summary 169

CHAPTER 13. PROOF THAT THE VESSEL WAS DEFECTIVE 171

1. The Defect 171

2. When Must the Defect Exist? 173 (i) On the short route to artic1e IV rule 2(p) 174

(ii) On the long route 175

3. Proof of the Defect 176

(i) Onus 176 (ii) Method of proof 178

4. Causation 182 (i) The requirement 182

(ii) Breach of contract and exemption 183 (iii) The merits of the proposition 186 (iv) Loss partly caused by unseaworthiness 189 (v) The causal connection 190

5. Conclusion 201

CHAPTER 14. DUE DILIGENCE IN GENERAL 203

I. Due Diligence and the General Law 203

2. Due Diligence Defined 205

3. Due Diligence and Latent Defects 206

4. Latent Defects and Force Maieure 207 5. The Short Route and the Long Route Compared 212

CHAPTER 15. DUE DILIGENCE IN PRACTICE 21 4

I. Men and Materials 214

2. Certificates of Seaworthiness 216 (i) The attitude of the courts to certificates 217

(ii) When will a certificate be conc1usive? 219 (iii) Rebuttal of certificates 222

x TABLE OF CONTENTS

3. The Influence of Questions of Fact (i) Factors diroinishing the carrier's duty

(ü) Factors increasing the activity required of the carrier

224

224 226

CHAPTER I6. WHEN MUST DUE DILIGENCE HAVE BEEN

E-XERCISED? 230

I. England 230

(i) The effect of article III rule I on the doctrine of stages 230 (ii) When roust the carrier begin to exercise due diligence? 233

(ili) When does the carrier's duty to exercise due diligence end? 234 (iv) Intermediate ports 235

2. England and France 237

3. France: Continuing Diligence 238

CHAPTER I7. LIABILITY FOR INDEPENDENT CONTRACTORS 240

I. The M uncaster Casele 240

2. General Arguments 241

3. Common Law Precedent 243 (i) Analogies 243

(ii) The AngUss case 244 (ili) Decisions under the Harter Act 246 (iv) Other cases 248

4. The Law of France and Other Countries 250

5. Conclusion 250

6. Reform 253

T ABLE OF CASES

(decided in English-speaking jurisdictions)

Ajum Goolam Hossen and Co. v. Union Marine Ins. Co. [1901J A.C. 362. Albacora S.R.L. v. Westcott and Laurance Line [1962J 2 Lloyd's Rep. 53. American Linseed Co. v. Norfolk and North American Steam Shipping Co.

(1929) 32 Fed. (2d) 28r. Amstelslot, The Union of India v. N.V.R. Amsterdam [1962J I Lloyd's Rep.

539; [1962J 2 Lloyd's Rep. 336; [1963J 2 Lloyd's Rep. 223. Angliss (W.) & Co. (Australia) Proprietary v. P. and o. S.N. Co. [1927J 2

K.B. 456 Anglo-Saxon Petroleum Co. v. Adamastos Shipping Co. [1959J A.C. 133. Ann Stathatos, The [1950J 83 Ll.L.R. 228. Ardennes (Cargo Owners) v. Ardennes (Owners) [1951J I K.B. 55. Assunzione, The [1956] 2 Lloyd's Rep. 468. Australia Star, The (1940) 67 Ll.L.R. IIO.

Australian Newsprint Mills Ltd. v. Canadian Union Line Ltd. (1952) I

D.L.R. 850.

Ball (B.].) (New Zealand) Ltd. v. Federal S.N. Co. Ltd. [1950J N.Z.L.R. 954. Black Heron, The [1964J A.M.C. 42. Blackburn Bobbin Co. v. Allen (T.W.) & Sons [1918J 2 K.B. 467. Blower v. G.W.R. (1872) L.R. 7 C.P. 655. Borthwick v. New Zealand Shipping Co. (1934) 49 Ll.L.R. 19. Bouillon v. Lupton (1863) 33 L.J. C.P. 37. Brabant, The [1965J 2 Lloyd's Rep. 546. Bradley (F.O.) & Sons Ltd. v. Federal S.N. Co. (1927) 27 Ll.L.R. 395. Brandt v. Liverpool, Brazil & River Plate S.N. Co. [1924J I K.B. 575. Brown v. Harrison (1927) 43 T.L.R. 633. Brown, Charles v. Nitrate Producers S.S. Co. (1937) 58 Ll.L.R. 188. Brown and Williamson v. S.S. Anghyra (1957) 157 F. Supp. 737. Bryntawe, The (1928) 32 Ll.L.R. ISS.

Californian and Hawaiian Sugar Co. v. Colombia S.S. Co. Inc. [1973J A.M.C. 676.

Canada Rice Mills Ltd. v. Union Marine Ins. Co. [1941J A.C. 55. Canadian Transport Co. Ltd. v. Court Line Ltd. [1940J A.C. 934. Cargo Carriers Inc. v. Brown (1950) 95 Fed. Supp. 288.

XII TABLE OF CASES

Carib Prince, The (1898) 170 D.S. 655. City of Alberni, The [1947] 2 D.L.R. 647. City of Baroda, The (1926) 25 Ll.L.R. 437. Coggs v. Bemard (1703) I Smith L.C. (13th ed.) 175. Colima, The (1897) 82 Fed. Rep. 665. Consolidated Mining Ltd. v. Straits Towing Ltd. [1972] 2 Lloyd's Rep. 497. Corporacion Argentina de Productores de Cames v. Royal Mail Lines Ltd.

(1939) 64 Ll.L.R. 188. Cosmopolitan Shipping Co. v. Hatton and Cookson (1929) 35 Ll.L.R. II7. Cranfield Bros. Ltd. v. Tatem S.N. Co. Ltd. (1939) 64 UL.R. 264.

Davie v. New Merton Board Mills [1959] A. C. 604 De Carvalho & Co. Ltd. v. Kent Line Ltd. (1950) 26 M.P.R. 77; [1951] 32

M.P.R. 282. Dimitrios N. Rallias, The (1922) 13 Ll.L.R. 363. Director General of India Supply Mission v. S.S. Maru [1972] A.M.C. 1694. Dobell & Co. v. Steamship Rossmore Co. [1895] 2 Q.B. 408. Dominion Tankers Ltd. v. Shell Petroleum Co. [1938] Ex. C.R. 192. Dunn v. Bucknall Bros. [1902] 2 K.B. 614.

Eastman Chemical Int. A.G. v. N.M.T. Trading Ltd. [1972] 2 Lloyd's Rep. 25·

Easwest Produce Co. v. The Ship S.S. Nordnes [1956] Ex. c.R. 328. Elswick S.S. Co. v. Montaldi [1907] I K.B. 626. Europa, The [1908] P. 84.

Falconbridge Nickel Mines v. Chimo Shipping [1969] 2 Lloyd's Rep. 272. Famworth Finance Facilities Ltd. v. Attryde [1970] I W.L.R. 1053. Farrandoc, The [1967] 2 Lloyd's Rep. 276. Federal Commerce & Navigation Co. Ltd. v. Eisenerz G.m.b.H. [1975] I

Lloyd's Rep. 105. Fisons Fertilizers v. Thomas Watson [1971] I Lloyd's Rep. 141. Freedom, The (1871) L.R. 3 P.C. 594.

Galileo, The [1915] A.c. 199. Garston Sailing Ship Co. v. Hickie (No. 2) (1886) 18 Q.B.D. 17. Giertsen v. Tumbull & Co. [1908] S.C. IIOL Glenfruin, The (1885) 10 P.D. 103. Glendarroch, The [1894] P. 226. Glynn v. Margetson & Co. [1893] A.C. 351. Goodfellow Lumber Sales Ltd. v. Verreault [1971] I Lloyd's Rep. 185. Goodman v. Deutsch-Atlantische Telegraphen Gesellschaft (1938) 2 N.Y.

Supp. (2nd) 80. Gosse Millard Ltd. v. Canadian Govt. Merchant Marine Ltd. [1929] A.C. 223. Guan Bee v. Palembang Shipping Co. Ltd. [1969] I Mal. L.J. 90.

Hadley v. Baxendale (1854) 9 Exch. 341. Hain S.S. v. Tate and Lyle (1936) 41 Com. Cas. 350.

TABLE OF CASES XIII

Hamilton Fraser & Co. v. Pandorf & CO. (1887) 12 App. Cas. 518. Harbutt's Plasticine Ltd. v. Wayne Tank & Pump Co. Ltd. [1970] I Q.B.

447· Hardwick Game Farm Ltd. v. S.A.P.P.A. [1967] 2 A.C. 31. Haseldine v. Daw & Son Ltd. [1941] 2 KB. 343. Heinz Horn [1970] I LIoyd's Rep. 191. Heron II, The [1969] I A.C. 350. Hong Kong Fir Shipping Co. Ltd. v. Kawasaki Kisen Kaisha Ltd. [1962] 2

Q.B.26. Horne v. Midland Ry. (1873) L.R. 7 C.P. 583. Hunt & Winterbotham Ltd. v. B.R.S. (Parcels) Ltd. [1962] I Q.B. 617.

International Nav. Co. v. Farr & Bailey (1901) 181 U.S. 218. International Packers v. Ocean S.S. Co. [1955J 2 Lloyd's Rep. 218. Irrawaddy, The (1897) 171 U.S. 187. Isbrandtsen Co. v. Federal Ins. Co. (1952) II3 F. Supp. 357. Isis, The (1934) 48 Ll.L.R. 35.

Jackson v. Mumford (1903) 8 Com. Cas. 61. Jackson V. Union Marine Ins. Co. (1874) L.R. 10 C.P. 125.

Karsales (Harrow) Ltd. V. Wallis [1956] I W.L.R. 936. Kish V. Taylor [1912] A.C. 604. Krell V. Henry [1903] 2 KB. 740. Kruger & Co. Ltd. V. Moel Tryvan Ship Co. Ltd. [1907] I KB. 809.

Lady Gwendolen, The [1965] P. 294. Larrinaga V. R. [1945] A.C. 246. Leduc V. Ward [1888] 20 Q.B. 475. Leesh River Tea CO. V. B.I.S.N. Co. [1967] 2 Q.B. 250. Lennard's Carrying Co. Ltd V. Asiatic Petroleum Co. Ltd. [1915] A.C. 705. Leval & Co. Inc. V. Colonial S.S. Ltd. [1961] I LIoyd's Rep. 560. Leyland Shipping CO. V. Norwich Union Ins. [1918] A.C. 350. Lindsay V. Klein [19II] A.C. 194. London Rangoon Trading CO. V. Ellerman Lines (1923) 14 LI.L.R. 497.

M.D.C. Ltd. V. N.V.Z.M. Beursstraat [1962] I Lloyd's Rep. 180. McFadden V. BIue Star Line [1905] I KB. 697. Mack, Hugh & Co. Ltd. V. Bums & Laird Line Ltd. (1944) 77. Ll.L.R. 377. Madras CO. V. P. & O. S.N. Co. Ltd. (1924) 18 Ll.L.R. 93. Makedonia, The [1962] I Lloyd's Rep. 316. Marilena P., The [1969] 2 Lloyd's Rep. 641. Mary L. Peters (1895) 68 Fed. 919. Maxine Footwear CO. V. Canadian Govt. Merchant Marine Ltd. [1957] S.C.R.

801; [1959] A.C. 589. Milburn & CO. V. Jamaica Fruit Co. [1900] 2 Q.B. 540. Minister of Food V. Reardon Smith Line [1951] 2 Lloyd's Rep. 265. Minister of Materials V. Wold S.S. Co. [1952] I Lloyd's Rep. 485.

XIV TABLE OF CASES

Moine Comte v. East Asiatic CO. (1954) 20 Mal. L.J. II3. Moore v. Lunn (1922) II LI.L.R. 86. Mormacsaga, The [1969] 1 LIoyd's Rep. 519. Mountain v. Whittle [1921] 1 A.C. 615. Muncaster Castle, The, Riverstone Meat Co. Pty. Ltd. v. Lancashire Shipp­

ing Co. Ltd. [1958] 1 Q.B. 74; [1959] 1 Q.B. 536; [1961] A. C. 807· Mutual Life & Citizens Ass. Co. Ltd. v. Evatt [1971] A.C. 793. Mynott v. Bamard (1939) 62 c.L.R. 68.

Nelson Line v. James Nelson (No. 2) [1908] A.C. 16. Nord-deutscher LIoyd v. President Ins. Co. of America (1901) IIO Fed. 420 Northumbria, The [1906] P. 292. Northumbrian Shipping Co. Ltd. v. Timm (E.) & Son Ltd. [1939] A.C. 397. Notara v. Henderson (1872) L.R. 5 Q.B. 346. Nugent v. Smith (1876) 1 C.P.D. 423.

Ocean S.S. Co. v. Queensland State Wheat Board [1941] 1 K.B. 402.

Paradine v. Jane (1647) Aleyn 26. Paterson S.S. Ltd. v. Canadian Cooperative Wheat Producers Ltd. [1934]

A.C·538. Paterson S.S. Ltd. v. Robin Hood Mills (1937) 58 LI.L.R. 33. Pearce v. Round Oak Steel Works Ltd. [1969] 1 W.L.R. 595. Pendle & Rivet Ltd. v. Ellerman Lines Ltd. (1927) 33 Com. Cas. 70. Peter Paul Inc. V. M/S Christer Salen (1957) 152 F. Supp. 410. Phillips v. British Hygienic Laundry Ltd. [1923] 1 K.B. 539. Phillips v. Clan Line (1943) 76 LI.L.R. 58. Pickup v. Thames & Mersey Ins. (1878) 3 Q.B.D. 594. Pink V. Fleming (1890) 25 Q.B.D. 396. President Monroe, The [1972] 1 LIoyd's Rep. 385. Prussia, The (1899) 93 Fed. 837. Pyrene v. Scindia Navigation Co. [1954] 2. Q.B. 402.

Rambler Cycle Co. Ltd. v. P. & O. S.N. Co. Ltd. (1964) 30 Mal. L.J. 443. Reardon Smith Line Ud. V. Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries & Food [1963]

A.C.6gI. Reed V. Page [1927] 1 K.B. 743. Remington Rand Inc. V. American Export Lines Inc. (1955) 132 F. Supp.

54°· Renton (G.H.) v. Palmyra Trading Corp. of Panama [1957] A.C. 149. Riley v. Horne (1828) 5 Bing. 217. Rio Tinto Co. v. Seed Shipping Co. (1926) 134 L.T. 764. Royal Greek Govt. v. Minister of Transport (No. I) [1949] 1 K.B. 7. Ruapehu, The (1925) 21 LI.L.R. 310.

St. Joseph, The [1933] P. II9. Sandeman V. Scurr (1866) L.R. 2 Q.B. 86. Scott v. London & St. Katherine Docks (1865) 3 H. and C. 596.

T ABLE OF CASES xv

Series v. Poole [1969] I Q.ß. 676. Sewell v. ßurdick (1884) 10 App. Cas. 74. Silcock (R) & Sons Ltd. v. Maritime Lighterage Co. Ltd. (1937) 57 Ll.L.R. 78. Silver v. Ocean S.S. Co. [1930] I Kß. 416. Silversandal, The [1940] A.M.C. 731. Silversteak, The [1941] A.M.C. 647. Smith, C.H. & Sons Fellmongery Proprietary Ltd. v. P. & O. S.N. Co. Ltd.

(1938) 60 Ll.L.R. 419. Smith, H.C. Ltd. v. G.W.R. [1922] I A.C. 178. Smith, Hogg & Co. Ltd. v. ßlack Sea & ßaltic General Ins [1940] A.C. 997. Spurling (J.) Ltd. v. ßradshaw [1956] I W.L.R. 461. Stag Line Ltd. v. Ellerman Lines (1949) 82 Ll.L.R. 826. Stag Line Ltd. v. Foscolo Mango & Co. Ltd. [1932] A.C. 328. Standard Oil Co. of New York v. Clan Line [1924] A.C. 100. States Marine Corps. v. Producers [1963] A.M.C. 246. Steel v. State Line S.S. Co. (1877) 3 App. Cas. 72. Studebaker v. Charlton S.S. Co. [1938] I Kß. 459. Suisse Atlantique Ste d'Armement Maritime v. N.V. Rotterdamsche Kolen

Centrale [1967] I A.C. 361. Sze Hai Tong ßank Ltd. v. Rambler Cycle Co. Ltd. [1959] A.C. 576.

Taylor v. Caldwell (1863) 3 ß. and S. 826. Tempus Shipping Co. v. Dreyfus [1930] I Kß. 699. Tesco Supermarkets Ud. v. Nattrass [1972] A.C. 153. Thames & Mersey Ins. Co. Ud. v. The 'Gunford' Shipping Co. Ud. [I9II]

A.C. 529. Thomson v. Micks, Lambert & Co. [1933] 47 Ll.L.R. 5. Thorley (Joseph) Ud. v. Orchis S.S. Co. Ud. [1907] I Kß. 660. Tomi, The [1932] P. 78. Toronto Elevators Ud. v. Colonial S.S. Ltd. [1950] Ex. C.R. 371. Travers & Son Ud. v. Cooper [1915] I Kß. 73. Trade & Transport Inc. v. lino Kaiun Kaisha Ud. [1973] I W.L.R. 210. Tynedale S.S. Co. v. Anglo-Soviet Shipping Co. (1936) 41 Com. Cas. 206.

Union Carbide & Carbon Corp. v. The Walter Raleigh (1951) I09 F. Supp. 781.

United Fresh Meat Co. Ltd. v. Charterhouse Cold Storage Ltd. [1974] 2 Lloyd's Rep. 286.

United Railways of Havana & Regla Warehouses Ltd., In Re [1960] Ch. 52. United States of America v. Eastmount Shipping Corp. [1975] I Lloyd's

Rep.2I6.

Vacwell Engineering Co. Ltd. v. ß.D.H. Chemicals Ud. [1971] I Q.ß. II. Vascongada, C.N. v. Churchill & Sim [1906] I Kß. 237. Victoria Laundry (Windsor) Ud. v. Newman Industries Ltd. [1949] 2 Kß.

528. Vita Food Products Inc. v. Unus Shipping Co. [1939] A.C. 277.

XVI TABLE OF CASES

Walker (Hiram) & Sons v. Dover Navigation Co. (1950) 83 Ll.L.R. 84. Waddle v. Wallsend Shipping Co. Ud. [1952] 2 Lloyd's Rep. 105. Weld-Blundell v. Stephens [1920] A. C. 956. Western Canadian 5.5. Co. Ud. v. Canadian Commercial Corp. (1958) 14

D.L.R. (2d) 487; [1961] 2 Lloyd's Rep. 313. White Rose, The [1969] I W.L.R. 1098. Wilson & Clyde Coal Co. Ud. v. English [1938] A.C. 57. Woolmer v. Delmer Price Ud. [1955] I Q.B. 291. Wroth v. Tylor [1974] Ch. 30.

Xantho, The (1887) 12 App. Cas. 503.

Yungay, The (1932) 58 Fed. (2d) 351.

T ABLE OF FRENCH CASES

Aix·9·7·87 Autran III. 177

Trois Sreurs Roq. 16.11.98 Autran XIV. 329

St. Augustin Paris 8.1.18 Autran XXXII. 325

Thekla Bohlen T. Arb. France-Allemand J.23·338 24.3.22

Reims T.C. Seine 15.1.23 Dor 11.284 City of Elwood T.C. Havre 13.4.23 Dor Sup. 1.216

Chaland F Aix 5.6.24 Dor Sup. 2.634 Chaland F Paris 29.10.24 Dor Sup. 2.873

Yalta Rennes 19.11.30 Dor Sup. 9.18

Euphorbia T.C. Bayonne 8.8.32 Dor Sup. 12.355

Euphorbia Pau 25.6.34 Dor Sup. 12.355

Massilia T.C. Bordeaux 15.12.38 S·4o.2·30

Oakdenne Poitiers 17.5.39 S·39·2.124

Kolente Paris 7.7.43 G.P. 43.2.123

Lamoriciere T.C. Alger 12.6.47 D.M.F. 49.151

Champollion T. Civ. Seine 8.1.48 G.P. 48.1.141 Oceanic Rouen 1I.6.{8 D.M.F. 50.65 Kolente Comm. 3°.11.48 D.M.F. 50.115

Luxor T.C. Havre 2.5.49 D.M.F. 50.90 Cantakiet T. Civ. Tunis 30.7.49 D.M.F. 50.563

XVIII TABLE OF FRENCH CASES

Pacific Express Dieppe 16.9.49 Gaz. Pal. 49.2.293 Saint-Bertrand Paris 21.11.49 D.M.F. 50.179 Sontay T.C. Seine 12.12.49 D.M.F. 50.395

Nato T.C. Rouen 4.2.50 D.M.F. 5°.285 Pilote Garnier Rouen 16.2.50 D.M.F. 50.539 Marie Cristina T.C. Tunis 18.3.50 D.M.F. 51.37 Tensift T.C. Rouen 6-4-50 D.M.F. 50.400 St. Nazaire T.C. Marseille 2.6.50 G.P. 5°.2.269 Gregers Gram Sent. 20.6.50 D.M.F. 51.302

Comm. 3.7.50 Bull. Civ. 5°.2.165 Timothy Dwight T.C. Marseille 7.7.50 D.M.F. 51.398 Pacific Express Rouen 22.7.50 D.M.F. 50.547 Evinos T.C. Havre 3.11.50 D.M.F. 51.235

Gerardmer T.C. Havre 12.2.51 D.M.F. 51.235 Tensift T.C. Seine 20.2.51 D.M.F. 52.514 (S) Cantakiet Alger 23.2.51 D.M.F. 51.435 Saentis T.C. Marseille 5.4.51 D.M.F. 51.409 (S) Lamoriciere Comm. 19.6.51 S·52.1.89

T.C. Alger 12.7.51 D.M.F. 51.620 (S) Oceanic Comm.23·7·51 D.M.F. 51.533 Vito T.C. Dunkerque 23.7.51 D.M.F. 52.97 Finistere Montpellier 14.11.51 D.M.F. 52.87 Madali T.C. Rouen 23.11.51 D.M.F. 53.52

Oceanic T.C. Dunkerque 14.1.52 D.M.F. 52.424 Stilbe Montpellier 26.2.52 D.M.F·53·8 Lionel Madagascar 19.3.52 D.M.F. 52.599

Benledi T.C. Marseille 28.4.52 D.M.F. 52.500 Hoegh Clair T.C. Seine 6.5.52 D.M.F. 53.413 Alvdal Sent. 13.5.52 D.M.F. 53.151

Sontay Paris 6.6.52 D.M.F. 52.421 Magne T.C. Havre 5.9.52 D.M.F. 53.145 Anson P.K. Safford Paris 20.10.52 D.M.F. 53.80 Guinee Rouen 8.11.52 D.M.F. 53.84

Madali Rouen 22.1.53 D.M.F. 53.262 Alger 20.3.53 D.M.F. 53.441

Oceanic Douai 23-4-53 D.M.F. 53.451 P.-E. Javary T.C. Havre 11.5.53 D.M.F. 53.707 Le Havre Rouen 16.5.53 D.M.F. 53.683 Ogogue Rabat 30.6.53 D.M.F. 54.586 Mervehaven T.C. Rouen 21.5.53 D.M.F. 54.235 Fauzon T.C. Havre 16.9.53 Rec. Havre 54.1.28 Gladstone T.C. Marseille 18.12.53 D.M.F. 54.354

TABLE OF FRENCH CASES

Compiegne Leconte de Lisle Cap Miseno James Lykes Marseillaise La Rochelle Gerardmer Lord Gladstone

Pierre de Saurel

Jupiter Panagiotis P.-E. Javary Carbonia American Miles Commandant le Biboul Caledonien Compiegne Chateau Palmer Dieppe Mosdale

American Ranger Algeria 313 Le Havre Zelidja Sir Jules

Andreina Marsano Mosdale

Zelidja Caledonien Ville du Havre Cerons Hoegh Alouette Banfora Tamara Dieppe Dione Bangkok Estrella Batavier I

Merkurius Marvia Coolhaven

T.C. Seine 25.I.54 T.C. Marseille 19.3.54 T.C. Marseille 9+54 T.C. Dunkerque 26.4.54 Rabat l5.6.54 Poitiers 23.6.54 Comm. 7.7.54 Saigon 6.IO.54 Douai 7.IO.54 Rabat 24.lI.54

T.C. Alger lO.I.55 Aix II.I.55 Rouen I3.I.55 Tunis l6.3.55 T.C. Seine 3.6.55 T.C. Seine 8.6.55 T.C. Seine 22.6.55 Paris 24.IO.55 T.C. Alger 24.II.55 T.C. Havre 29.lI.55 T.C. Nantes 5.l2.55

Rennes 2l.I.56 Rouen lO.2.56 Comm. l4.2.56 T.C. Havre l4.2.56 T.C. Seine 28.2.56 T. Civ. Seine 7.6.56 Sent. l3.II.56 Rennes 2I.II.56

Rouen I.2.57 Paris 2l.2.57 T.C. Havre II.3.57 Paris 3.5.57 Paris 3.5.57 Aix 28.5.57 Aix 4.6.57 Rouen I2.7.57 Rouen l2.7.57 Comm. 14.lo.57 Aix 29.lO.57 Bordeaux 5.II.57

T.C. Seine I7.2.58 T.C. Marseille 4.3.58 Paris 4.7.58

XIX

D.M.F. 54-486 D.M.F. 55.l65 D.M.F. 55.76l (S) D.M.F. 55.436 (S) D.M.F. 55.223 D.M.F. 55.225 D.M.F. 54.646 D.M.F. 56.l39 Gaz. Pal. 54.2.302 D.M.F. 56.38

D.M.F. 55.548 J.C.P. 56-9333 D.M.F. 56.l45 D.M.F. 56.275 D.M.F. 56.745 (S) D.M.F. 56.630 (S) D.M.F. 56.l66 D.M.F. 56.l63 D.M.F. 56.562 (S) D.M.F. 56.664 D.M.F. 56.565 (S)

D.M.F. 56.4II D.M.F. 57.l3 D.M.F. 56.336 D.M.F·57·4l8 D.M.F·57·l65 R. 56.683 D.M.F·57·IIO D.M.F·57·54

D.M.F. 57.4l8 J.C.P. 57-lo087 D.M.F. 58.I07 D.M.F·58·397 D.M.F. 57.473 D.M.F·58.89 D.M.F·58·337 D.M.F. 58.27 D.M.F. 58.52l R. 57.684 D.M.F. 58.l53 D.M.F. 58.2l5

D.M.F. 58.287 D.M.F. 59.423 D.M.F. 59.146

XX TABLE OF FRENCH CASES

La Rochelle Comm. 22.10.58 D.M.F·59·89 Dubreka T.C. Marseille 9.12.58 D.M.F. 59.553

Carimare Rouen 16.1.59 D.M.F. 59.356 P.-E. Javary Comm.19·1.59 D.M.F. 59.272 P.-E. Javary Comm. 21.1.59 D.M.F. 59.274 Jumieges Paris 6.2.59 D.M.F. 59-476 Asthene Sexto T.C. Rouen 3-4.59 D.M.F. 60.243 (S) Zit Aix 9.6.59 D.M.F. 59.534 Canada Comm. 15.6.59 D.M.F. 59.656 Merkurius Paris 19.6.59 D.M.F. 60.86 Monseigneur Duparc Sent. 8.7.59 D.M.F. 60.IIO Antilles Paris 9.7.59 D.M.F. 59.680 Bastia Aix 6.10.59 D.M.F. 60.94 Immen Paris 5.11.59 D.M.F. 60.594

Matelots Pillien et Paris 5.11.59 D.M.F. 60.484 Peyrat

Compiegne Comm. 10.11.59 D.M.F. 60.141 Port-Navalo Paris 27.11.59 D.M.F. 60.223 Artesien T.C. Seine 4.12.59 D.M.F. 60.359

General Dufour Aix 6.1.60 D.M.F. 61.25 Bretagne Aix 2.2.60 D.M.F. 60.291 Maneah Rennes 17.2.60 D.M.F. 61.281 Natal T.C. Seine 26+60 BuH. Transp. 60.164 Apsara Paris 6.5.60 D.M.F. 60.549 La Marseillaise Aix 7.6.60 D.M.F. 61.207 Canada Bordeaux 23.6.60 D.M.F. 60.674 Mirzan Rouen 20.7.60 D.M.F.61.724 Djoliba Aix 11.10.61 D.M.F. 62.276 Sindh T.C. Seine 2.12.60 D.M.F.61.724

Paris T.C. Seine 18.1.61 D.M.F. 61.497 Djerada T.C. Seine 22.1.61 D.M.F. 61.428 Phryne Montpellier 2.2.61 D.M.F. 61.672 Bourgogne Sent. 27.2.61 D.M.F. 61.749 PaHas T.C. Marseille 25+61 D.M.F. 62.223 Emmanuela T.C. Marseille 19.5.61 D.M.F. 62.IIl Ville de Djibouti T.C. Havre 20.6.61 D.M.F. 61.688 Nordzee Rouen 23.6.61 D.M.F. 62.280 Cap des Palmes Aix 27.6.61 D.M.F. 61.740 Brasiluso T.C. Seine 6.7.61 D.M.F. 63.430 Fernwave T.C. Alger 6.11.61 D.M.F. 62.487

Herculis Paris 5.2.62 D.M.F. 62.345 Caledonien Comm. 20.2.62 D.M.F. 62.335 Ferosia Rouen 9.3.62 D.M.F. 62.414

TABLE OF FRENCH CASES XXI

Mintaka N' T.C. Rouen 9.3.62 D.M.F. 63.407 Prosper-Schiaffino Montpellier 1I.4.62 D.M.F. 62.664 Cantenac Paris 6.II.62 D.M.F. 64.16 Finnlith T.C. Sete 27.II.62 D.M.F. 63.627 Zit Comm. 4.12.62 D.M.F. 63.I45

La Rochelle Bordeaux 16.I.63 D.M.F. 63.225 Matouba T.C. Seine 8.5.63 D.M.F. 64.687 Redstart T.C. Seine 6.6.63 D.M.F. 64.496 Citta di Siracusa T.C. Marseille 1I.6.63 D.M.F. 64.438 (S) Brasiluso Paris 19.6.63 D.M.F. 63.666 Merkurius Comm. 2I.1O.63 D.M.F. 64.14

Annie-Hugo-Stinner T.C. Seine 7.2.64 D.M.F. 64.371 Pallas Aix 20.2.64 D.M.F. 64.294 Carimare Comm.14-4-64 D.M.F. 64.471 Alexandre-Silva Bordeaux 25-4-64 D.M.F. 64.739 St. Matthieu T.C. Havre 13.10.64 D.M.F. 65.738

Matouba Paris 15.I.65 D.M.F. 66.141 Algol Paris 2.1I.65 D.M.F. 66.100 Teneriffe Aix 4.II.65 D.M.F.66·417 Notre Dame d'Afrique Montpellier 2.12.65 D.M.F. 66.536

Ponta Garca Paris I4.2.66 D.M.F. 66.675 Schie Lloyd Paris 15.2.66 D.M.F. 67.344 St. Matthieu Rouen 18.2.66 D.M.F.66.682 Marika Protopapa Montpellier 3.5.66 D.M.F. 66.729 Gemma T.C. Seine 30.1I.66 D.M.F.68·560

Chergui et Macta T.C. Sete 2I.3.67 D.M.F. 67.687 Cap Farina T.C. Sete 13.6.67 D.M.F. 68.II3 Martiniquais Paris 28.6.67 D.M.F. 68.38 Gwalarn Rennes 23.10.67 D.M.F. 68.720

Pallas Comm. 9.I.68 R. 69.487 Hildegard Doerenkamp T.C. Rouen 8.2.68 D.M.F. 68.548 Clarita Schroeder T.C. Marseille 13.2.68 D.M.F. 68.109 Julia C. Ertel T.C. Paris 15.5.68 D.M.F. 69.234 Kongshavn Rouen 7.II.68 D.M.F. 69.157

Clarita Schroeder Aix 16-4.69 D.M.F. 69.677 Hildegard Doerenkamp Rouen 16.5.69 D.M.F. 69.744 Mont Joly T.C. Marseille 10.6.69 D.M.F. 70.224

Aria T.C. Nantes 26.2.70 D.M.F·7I.38 Citta di Messina Aix 5.5.70 D.M.F. 7I.26 President Monroe T.C. Marseille 26.5.70 D.M.F. 7I.355

XXII TABLE OF FRENCH CASES

Eleni Aix 24.6.7° D.M.F. 70.679 Ragnhild Brovig Paris 26.10.70 D.M.F. 71.395

Armorique Paris 2.2.71 D.M.F. 71.222 Cap Farina T.C. Paris 26.2.71 D.M.F. 71.618 Berkans T.C. Marseille 5.3.71 D.M.F. 71.721 Chergui Montpellier 1.4.71 D.M.F. 71.590 Relizane T.C. Marseille 23.5.71 D.M.F. 72.54 (S) Suffren Rouen 4.6.71 D.M.F·72·332 Cheliff T.C. Paris 23.6.71 D.M.F. 72.176 Forwarder T.C. Paris 23.6.71 D.M.F. 72.308 Kelli Paris 7.7.71 D.M.F. 72.150 Luchon T.C. Marseille 7.9.71 D.M.F. 72.612 Cassarate T.C. Marseille 7.9.71 D.M.F. 72.366

Cynthia T.C. Marseille 14.1.72 D.M.F·72.283 Francina T.C. Marseille 4.2.72 D.M.F. 72.551 Vikingland T.C. Marseille 18.2.72 D.M.F. 72-492 West Meep T.C. Marseille 22.2.72 D.M.F. 72.731 Stephan Rouen 29.2.72 D.M.F·72-463 Cassarate Aix 4.5.72 D.M.F. 72.662 Pointe Marin T.C. Havre 9.5.72 D.M.F. 72.497 Emma Methenitis Aix 13.6.72 D.S. 73· J. 96 Med Star T.C. Paris 14.6.72 D.M.F. 73.175 Acapu1co Aix 20.6.72 D.M.F. 73.276 Container-Forwarder Paris 21.6.72 D.M.F. 72.675 Menkar Aix 29.6.72 D.M.F·73.281 Ville d' Anvers Rouen 30.6.72 D.M.F. 72.72 Biafra Rouen 3.11.72 D.M.F·73·650 Le Cheliff Paris 12.12.72 D.M.F. 73.292 Esbem Snare Aix 20.12.72 D.M.F. 74.240 (S)

Jongkind T.C. Paris 10.1.73 D.M.F. 73.610 Douce France T.C. Marseille 26.1.73 D.M.F. 73.617 Relizane T.C. Marseille 18.3.73 D.M.F. 74.498 (S) Heidi Wiards T.C. Paris 2.4.73 D.M.F·74·296 Normania T.C. Paris 2.4.73 D.M.F. 74.161 Goetringen T.C. Marseille 6+73 D.M.F. 74.300 Balvy Poitiers 9.5.73 D.M.F. 73.659 Koudekerk Aix 9.5.73 D.M.F. 73.654 Angeliki Aix 18.5.73 D.M.F. 75.308 (S) Ville de Brest T.C. Paris 18.5.73 D.M.F. 74.369 (S) Beniajan Aix 13.6.73 D.M.F. 75.363 (S) Playa deI Medano T.C. Havre 13.11.73 D.M.F. 74.168 Med Star Paris 4.12.73 D.M.F. 74.233 Relizane T.C. Marseille 26.10.73 D.M.F. 74.II3

Botee Dimitri-Furmanov Marsouin Schiehaven Ville d' Anvers Navire "M" Artagnon Circee

TABLE OF FRENCH CASES

T.C. Paris 13.2.74 Aix I.3.74 Aix 8.3.74 T.C. Rouen 22.3.74 Comm. 2.4.74 Sent. 5.II.74 T.C. Paris 4.12.74 T.C. Marseille 9.9.75

D.M.F. 75.99 D.M.F. 74.6IO D.M.F. 74.520 D.M.F. 74.549 D.M.F. 74.458 D.M.F. 75.297 D.M.F. 75.545 D.M.F. 76.160

XXIII

ABBREVIA TIONS

A.F.D.M.: Association Fran<;aise de Droit Maritime. ARMINJON: P. Arminjon, Pn~cis de Droit International Prive, Paris 1948. BARTLE: R. Bartle, Introduction to Shipping Law (2nd ed.), London 1963. BATIFFOL: H. Batiffol, Traite de Droit International Prive (5th ed.), Paris

197I. BATIFFOL CONTRACTS: H. Batiffol, Les Conflits de Loi en Matiere de Con­

trats, Paris 1938. BRAEKHUS: S. Braekhus, The Hague Rules Catalogue, in Six Lectures on the

Hague Rules, Stockholm 1960. BRITISH REPORT, THE: Report of the British Delegates at the International

Maritime Conference held at Brussels 17-26 October 1922, London 1923. CARVER: Carver, Carriage by Sea (12th ed.), London 197I. C.F.D.LP.: Comite Fran<;ais de Droit International Prive. CHAUVEAU: P. Chauveau, Traite de Droit Maritime, Paris 1958. CHAUVEAU CONVENTIONS: P. Chauveau, Des Conventions Portant Loi Uni­

forme, in J. 56.570. CHESHIRE: G. C. Cheshire, Private International Law (8th ed.), London 1970. CHESHlRE & FIFOOT: G. C. Cheshire, C. H. S. Fifoot, and M. P. Furmston,

The Law of Contract (8th ed.), London 1972. C.M.L: Comite Maritime International. COGSA: Carriage of Goods by Sea Act. COLE: S. D. Cole, Carriage of Goods by Sea Act 1924 (4th ed.), London 1937. COLINVAUX: R. P. Colinvaux, Carriage of Goods by Sea Act 1924, London

1954· CONVENTION, THE: International Convention for the Unification of Certain

Rules of Law Relating to Bills of Lading, signed at Brussels August 25, 1924, sometimes known as the Hague Rules.

COOK: W. W. Cook, Logical and Legal Bases of the Conflict of Laws, Cam­bridge, Mass., 1942.

DICEY: A. V. Dicey and J. H. C. Morris, Conflict of Laws (9th ed.), London 1973·

DIMOPOULOS: A. Dimopoulos, The Liability of the Carrier of Goods by Sea, a Comparative Study in English and French Law, Ph.D. thesis, Cambridge 1962.

XXVI ABBREVIATIONS

DOR CLAUSES: S. Dor, Bill of Lading Clauses and the Brussels International Convention of 1924 (2nd ed.), Gateshead 1960.

FALCONBRIDGE: J. D. Falconbridge, Essays on the Conflict of Laws (2nd ed.), Toronto 1954.

FRAIKIN: G. Fraikin, Traite de la Responsabilite du Transporteur Maritime, Paris 1957.

GRAVESON MICHIGAN: R. H. Graveson, The Conflict of Laws and Interna­tional Contracts, Michigan 1951.

GUYON: Y.-F. Guyon, Les Transports Regis par la Loi du 2 avril 1936, Paris 1959.

HAUDEK: W. Haudek, Die Bedeutung des Parteiwillens im internationalen Privatrecht, Berlin 1931.

HCP: AState which has signed or adhered to the Conven~ion. I.L.A.: International Law Association. JAMBU-MERLIN TRAVAUX: R. Jambu-Merlin in Travaux du C.F.D.I.P.

1960-2, p. 89, seance du 9 mars 1961. JUGLART, DE: M. de Juglart, Traite EIementaire de Droit Aerien, Paris

1952. KNAUTH: A. W. Knauth, The American Law of Ocean Bills of Lading (4th

ed.), Baltimore 1953. L36: French law of 2.4.1936 concerning the transport of goods by sea. LEMOINE: M. Lemoine, Traite de Droit Aerien, Paris 1947. LEREBOURS-PIGEONNIERE: P. Lerebours-Pigeonniere, Precis de Droit In-

ternational Prive (8th ed.). Paris 1962. LONDON DRAFT, THE: Draft of International Convention for the Unification

of Certain Rules for the Carriage of Goods by Sea, C.M.I.-Bulletin no. 65, P·362.

MARAIS TRANSPORTS: G. Marais, Les Transports de Marchandises par Mer et la Jurisprudence, Paris 1948.

MARAIS TRANSPORTS INTERNATIONAux: G. Marais, Les Transports Interna­tionaux de Marchandises par Mer et la Jurisprudence en Droit Compare, Paris 1949.

MARKIANOS: D. J. Markianos, Die übernahme der Haager Regeln in die nationalen Gesetze über die Verfrachtung, Hamburg 1960.

MARTY ET RAYNAUD: G. Marty and P. Raynaud, Droit Civil, Paris 1956-65. MAZEAUD LE<,(ONS: H., L., and J. Mazeaud, Le~ons de Droit Civil (3rd ed.),

t. 2, Paris 1966. MELCHIOR: G. Melchior, Die Grundlagen des deutschen internationalen

Privatrechts, Leipzig 1932. NEcKER: K.-H. Necker, Der Räumliche Geltungsbereich der Haager Regeln,

Berlin 1962. NIBOYET, J. P. Niboyet, Traite de Droit International Prive Fran~ais (2nd

ed.), Paris 1947-50. NUSSBAUM: A. Nussbaum, Principles of Private International Law, New

York 1943. OFFERHAUS: J. Offerhaus, Carrier's Liability under Uniform Hague Rules

Law, Göteborg 1955. PAYNE: Payne and I vamy, Carriage of Goods by Sea (9th ed.), London 1972.

ABBREVIATIONS XXVII

POURCELET: M. Pourcelet, Le Transport Maritime sous Connaissement, Montreal I972.

PROTOCOL OPTION: An option in the protocol of signature to the Convention, providing that states "may give effect to this convention either by giving it the force of law or by induding in their nationallegislation in a form appropriate to that legislation the rules adopted under this convention."

PROTOCOL RESERVE: A dause in the protocol of signature to the Convention providing that states "may reserve the right ... to apply art. VI in so far as the national coasting trade is concerned to all dasses of goods without taking ac count of the restriction set out in the last paragraph of that ar­tide."

RAAPE: L. Raape, Internationales Privatrecht (5th ed.), Berlin I96I. RABEL: E. Rabel, Conflict of Laws, Michigan I960. RIPERT: G. Ripert, Droit Maritime (4th ed.), Paris I950, mise a jour I963. RIPERT PRECIS: G. Ripert, Precis de Droit Maritime (6th ed.), Paris I952. RISKA: O. Riska, Shipowner's Liability for Damage Caused by the Negligen-

ce of an Independent Contractor Performing Work for the Ship, in Six Lectures on the Hague Rules, Stockholm I960.

RODlERE: R. Rodiere, Traite General de Droit Maritime, Paris I967-70. RODlE RE PRECIS: R. Rodiere, Precis de Droit Maritime (2nd ed.), Paris I967. RODIERE TRANSPORTS: R Rodiere, Le Droit des Transports, Paris I953-60. RJ.C.: Report of the Joint Parliamentary Committee on the Carriage of

Goods by Sea Bill, I923. SAUVAGE: F. Sauvage, Manuel Pratique des Transports de Marchandises

par Mer, Paris I955, mise a jour I964. SAUVAGE LEGISLATION : F. Sauvage, La Legislation Nouvelle sur les Trans­

ports de Marchandises par Mer, Paris I937. SAUVAGE TRANSPORTS: F. Sauvage, Le Transport des Marchandises par Mer,

Paris I967. SCAPEL LEGISLATION : P. Scapel, La Nouvelle Legislation sur les Transports

des Marchandises par Mer, Paris (no date). SCRUTTON: Scrutton, Charterparties and Bills of Lading (ISth ed.), London

I974· SHAH: B. S. Shah, Seaworthiness - A Comparative Survey, in I966 Malaya

Law Review 95. SINGH AND COLINVAUX: N. Singh and R. P. Colinvaux, Shipowners, London

I967· SOLUS ET PERROT: H. Solus and B. Perrot, Droit Judiciaire Prive, Paris

I96I. STÖDTER STATUTEN KOLLISION : R. Städter, Zur Statutenkollision im See­

frachtrecht. Bemerkungen zu Art. X der Haager Regeln, in Liber Amico­rum Albert Bagge p. 220, Stockholm I956.

TEMPERLEV: R. Temperley and F. M. Vaughan, Carriage of Goods by Sea Act I924 (4th ed.), London I932.

TETLEv: W. Tetley, Marine Cargo Claims, Toronto I965. WÜSTENDÖRFER: H. Wüstendärfer, Neuzeitliches Seehandelsrecht (2nd ed.),

Tübingen I950. YIANNOPOULOS: A. N. Yiannopoulos, Negligence Clauses in Ocean Bills of

Lading, Louisiana I962.

PREFACE

It has been estimated that four-fifths of an carriage of goods by sea are governed by the Hague Rules, properly known as the Convention for the Unification of Certain Rules Relating to Bills of Lading, signed at Brussels in 1924. The success of the Convention is wen recognised. Its importance is self-evident and such that, notwithstanding its success, it has been the subject of regular scrutiny with a view to improvement and reform. Attention has focussed on various matters, among them two central provisions which are the subject of this book. First to be considered is article X concerning the legal scope of the Convention: to which contracts for carriage under bills of lading does the Convention apply? This question has caused much trouble, was debated by the C.M.1. for twenty years and was apparently settled by a new Conven­tion signed at Brussels in 1968; but the solution may never come into force as the entire Convention is currently being considered by the United Nations with a view to reform of a different kind.

The second part of the book examines one of the fundamental duties in the Convention. The ultimate duties of the carrier are duties of due diligence, diligence in caring for cargo and diligence in preparing his ship for sea. It is the latter duty that has been selected for detailed study. This duty of due diligence to make the ship seaworthy, of Anglo­Saxon origin, is a duty that might easily be applied differently in dif­ferent countries. Moreover, it is a duty the meaning of which has been debated since the beginning of the last decade.

These questions are studied comparatively in the law of two major trading nations of different legal tradition, England and France. Where differences of application are found they are examined for traces of domestic legal ideas which might have infected the Convention.

This book is based on a doctoral dissertation submitted in the Uni­versity of Cambridge and honoured with a Y orke Prize for 1974. My

xxx PREFACE

thanks are due and gladly offered to Professor C. J. Hamson, under whose guidance the original research was conducted, and to Professor J. A. J olowicz and Professor R. Rodiere for helpful comment at a later stage.

St. John's College, Cambridge June 1976 M.A.C.