Skip to main content
  • 1567 Accesses

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 119.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 159.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 159.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Article 2. Quantum Corp. Inc. v. Plane Trucking Ltd. [2003] 1 All ER.873, C.A.; C sent a consignment of hard disk drives from Singapore to Ireland. The consignment was issued with a master air waybill by an agent of D, the airline, which recorded that the goods were to be carried in two stages, first by air from Singapore to Paris and thence by road to Dublin on a service arranged through D. By clause 6.3.2 of its terms, D had the right to substitute some other means of transport on either leg. In the course of being carried by road the consignment was stolen. D accepted liability, but alleged that it was entitled to rely upon its contractual limitation of liability. C contended that the Paris to Dublin leg of the shipment was governed by the C.M.R. Convention which would, in the instant case, have overridden D’s terms and provided for a more generous limit on liability. Article 1(1) of the C.M.R. provided for its application to every contract for the international carriage of goods by road. The Court of Appeal state, inter alia, that the place of taking over and delivery of the goods, for the purposes of Article 1(1), was the start and end of the contractually provided or permitted road leg. The fact that D, the airline, in the instant case could have elected to substitute a method of carriage other than road between Paris and Dublin was not relevant since the mere inclusion of such an option in a contract could not sensibly be decisive as to the application of the C.M.R. Therefore, the contract between the parties was for carriage by road within Article 1(1) of C.M.R. in relation to the road leg from Paris to Dublin and that D’s own terms, to the extent that they limited its liability, were overridden, i.e. the C.M.R. limitation applied.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Thermo Engineers Ltd and Anhydro A/S v. Ferrymasters Ltd. [1981] 1 W.L.R.1470.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Article 34.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Article 38.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Michael Galley Footwear Ltd (In Liquidation) v. Iaboni [1982] 2 All E.R.200.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Article 20(1).

    Google Scholar 

  7. Per Lord Alverstone, C.J., Forder v. Great Western Railway Co. [1905] 2 K.B.532, 535. This definition was cited with approval in Texas Instruments Ltd. v. Nason (Europe) Ltd. [1991] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 146, 153. In Laceys (Wholesale) Footwear Ltd. v Bowler International Freight Ltd. [1997] 2 Lloyd’s Rep.369, C.A., D were employed by C to transport a consignment of shoes from Spain to England. The Spanish driver reported to an office in Slough, where he was instructed to deliver the shoes only to L’s premises in London. On reaching L’s premises in London, however, the driver was persuaded to divert to an industrial estate and load the goods into an unmarked vehicle, which was subsequently reported stolen. D, contrary to C’s express instructions, had neglected to insure the consignment. C were awarded damages on the grounds of B’s wilful misconduct, for wilful misconduct to be established, it was necessary first to consider what conduct was expected of someone entrusted with the property of another and then determine whether that person’s acts or omissions were so far outside the range of what was to be expected that it could properly be considered misconduct. The Court considered that the combination of deliberate disregard of express instructions with the fact that D, who was entrusted with goods, knew that loss or damage might result from his actions but nevertheless deliberately took a risk when it was unreasonable to do so, could be construed as acting with reckless carelessness, and hence wilful misconduct.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Quantum Corp. Inc. v. Plane Trucking Ltd [2003] 1 All ER.873, C.A.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Article 30(1).

    Google Scholar 

  10. Articles 30(3) and (4).

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2006 Springer Science+Business Media, Inc.

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

(2006). Carriage of Goods by Road. In: Principles of Law Relating to International Trade. Springer, Boston, MA. https://doi.org/10.1007/0-387-30699-4_13

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics