Skip to main content
  • 1563 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. Convention Supplementary to the Warsaw Convention, for unification of certain rules relating to international carriage by Air performed by a person other than the contracting carrier, Guadalajara, September 18, 1961.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Protocol to amend the Warsaw Convention, Guatemala City, March 8, 1961: This dealt with carriage of passengers and their baggage but not cargo or mail. The Montreal Additional Protocols 1975: These three Protocols replaced the old unit of liability with Special Drawing Rights (S.D.R.). They applied the changes to the original Warsaw convention, the Hague Protocol, and the Guadalajara convention, respectively. The Montreal Protocol No.4: This dealt with cargo provisions, e.g. airway bill, of the Warsaw convention as amended by the Hague Protocol.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Over fifty-four countries, including the U.S.A. and all E.C. Member States have ratified the Convention.

    Google Scholar 

  4. This Convention has been approved on behalf of the European Union, by Council Decision 2001/539/EC, ‘on the conclusion by the European Community of the Convention for the Unification of Certain Rules for International Carriage by Air (“the Montreal Convention”)’, (O.J. 2001 L 194, 18/07/2001, p.38). This 1999 Convention in effect supersedes the Warsaw Convention and subsequent related provisions. The Carriage by Air Acts (Application of Provisions) Order 2004, (S.I.2004, No. 1999), brought the Montreal 1999 Convention into force in the U.K. Amendments to the Carriage by Air Act 1961 were made by the Carriage by Air Acts (Implementation of the Montreal Convention 1999) Order 2002 (S.I.2002, No.263).

    Google Scholar 

  5. The ‘gold franc’ referred to is a ‘diplomatic’ unit of currency, not an actual coin in commercial use, weighing 10/31 of a gramme and being of millesimal finess 900. The Carriage by Air (Sterling Equivalents) Order 1996, (S.I. 1996, No.244), came into force in February 1996, and introduced the Sterling equivalents for expressing the limitation figures contained in the First Schedule (containing the Warsaw Convention 1929, and the amended Warsaw Convention 1975; 250 francs are £15.89, 5,000 francs £317.71, 125,000 francs £7942.79, and 250,000 francs £15,885.58).

    Google Scholar 

  6. See for example, Applied Implants Technology Ltd. v. Lufthansa Cargo AG [2000] 2 Lloyd’s Rep.46, where a carriage was subject to the original Warsaw Convention. C claimed damages against D for damage caused to part of a machine contained in one of the packages carried by D (all packages included in one airway bill). Under the amended Convention the weight of the damaged package or the combined weight of all packages covered under one air waybill was to be taken into account. However, D contended that the value of the remaining packages had not been affected since the damage to one part had not permanently affected the value of the remaining parts. Further, D suggested that C could replace the damaged machinery part without delay. It was held that the important point in the carriage with regards to this provision was the end of the carriage by air in which the damage was sustained. In the circumstances the damage caused the remaining parts of the machine to be worthless until the damaged part had been replaced. Furthermore, the ability of a claimant to mitigate its loss by obtaining a replacement part speedily would not affect the limitation of liability.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Article 19, Montreal Convention, 1999.

    Google Scholar 

  8. The same would seem to be position under the Montreal Convention; Article 55. Cf. Philippson and Others Appellants v. Imperial Airways, Limited [1939] A.C.332, H.L., where it was held, inter alia, that a State (Belgium) which had only signed the (Warsaw) Convention was a ‘High Contracting Party’.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Article 31(2), Montreal Convention, 1999.

    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 Air. In: Principles of Law Relating to International Trade. Springer, Boston, MA. https://doi.org/10.1007/0-387-30699-4_14

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics