Abstract
The introduction of the Convention into the law of England and of France is best described as a process of superimposition upon the previous law; the latter not only survived with a more limited area of application, but also formed a legal substratum exercising a hidden influence upon the Convention. The legal landscape of international bills of lading is apparently carved according to the Convention, but in neither country can its application be explained without reference to the previous law that lies beneath.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
References
Discussed infra no .4 (i); generally, v. Ripert nos. 1399, 2687 and 1720.
Maneah,Rennes 17.2.60, D.M.F. 61.281; also e.g. Leconte de Lisle,T.C. Marseille 19.3.54, D.M.F. 55.265; Estrella,Aix 29.1057, D.M.F. 58.1 53, 525; Bretagne,Aix 2.2.60, D.M.F. 6o. 291; Zelidja,T.C. Havre 14.2.56, D.M.F. 57.418; Rodière Précis no. 388; cf. “P”,Sent. 28.2.72, D.M.F. 72.690.
No. 1687; also no. 1793. Cf. Pourcelet no. 73 who wrongly asserts this to be the rule in common law jurisdictions; this error is related to the error discussed below ch. 12 no. 3.
(1828) 5 Bing. 227, 22o; v. also Holt L.J. cited supra no. r.
Generally, v. R. David, “Les Grands Systèmes de Droit Contemporains” nos. 67 and 319.
Per James L J in Nugent v. Smith (1876) r C.P.D.423, 444.
Per Cockburn C.J. in Nugent v. Smith (1876) 1 C.P.D.423, 434 ff., holding also that the event must have the same degree of irresistibility as a peril of the sea.
Per Willes J. in Blower v. G.W.R. (1872) L.R.7 C.P.655, 662.
Ripert no. 1709; cf. Rodière no. 6zo.
Comm. 3.7.50, Bull. Civ. 1950.2.165; v. Ripert no. 1720; Mazeaud Leçons t. II no. 573; Marty et Raynaud II vol. r no. 483.
Cf. Ripert no. 1721.
Dimopoulos no. 95; cf. Ripert no. 1722 who is reluctant to give examples.
] 2 K.B. 740.
E.g. Blackburn Bobbin Co. v. Allen [1918] 2 K.B. 467; Dimopoulos no. 98; but cf. Marty et Raynaud II vol. 1 no. 485.
No. 1793.
As to which, v. Rodière nos. 620 ff.; Ripert nos. 1805 ff. This exception, now found in the law of 18.6.66 art. 27 (b), is roughly equivalent to the exception of “Act etc. in the navigation or management of the ship,” which originated in the Harter Act and is found in the Convention, art. IV r. 2 (a).
Ripert no. 1735.
Taylor v. Caldwell (1863) 3 B. & S. 826; Jackson v. Union Marine Ins. Co. (1874) L.R. Io C.P. 125..
E.g. Steel v. State Line (1877) 3 App. Cas. 72, 76 per Cairns L.C.; generally see Carver no. roo. In the United States of America, Knauth p. 192.
Kopitoff y Wilson (1876), 3 Asp. M.L.C. 163, 165 per Field J.
Ripert no. 1708; Audouin in Dor 7.r, 3; Dor 2.253; Aubrun D.37.418; Dor 31.72, 76; Aix 9.7.1887, Autran III. 177; Sent. 21.7.34, Dor Sup. 12.414; Finistére, Montpellier 14.11.5r,D.M.F.52.87; Rodière in D.M.F. 65.387, 39o.For a similar position in Dutch law v. D.M.F.6o.312; in the law of the U.S.A. e.g. Cargo Carriers Inc. v. Brown (1950) 95 Fed. Supp. 288; in Canadian law e.g. De Carvalho v. Kent Line (r95o) 26 M.P.R.77.
McFadden v. Blue Star Line [1905] i K.B. 697, 706 per Channell J.; Carver no. 109; Scrutton p. 82; Shah p. zoo.
The Glenfruin (1885) 10 P.D.zo3.
Reed v. Page [1927] 1 K.B. 743, 755 per Scrutton L.J.; Carver no. 115; Scrutton p. 81; p. 106.
P. 15; McFadden v. Blue Star Line [1905] I K.B. 697, 704–5 per Channel! J.; this statement must be qualified in respect of bunkering stages, as to which, v. Carver no. 116.
Giertsen v. Turnbull [1908] S.C. nor, Inc, per Ld. Ardwall; Tynedale v. Anglo-Soviet Shipping (1936) 41 Corn. Cas. 206; Carver no. 382; Scrutton p. 367; Payne p. 27; Shah p. 109.
Waddle v. Wallsend Shipping Co. [1952] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 105, 139 per Devlin J.
Smith Hogg v. Black Sea and Baltic Insurance Co. [194o] A.C.997; this is no special rule of causation, but a particular application of the general rule of the law of Contract, that loss, to be recoverable, must not be too remote, as to which, v. The Heron II [1969] I A.C. 35o.
U.S. Statutes at Large, 445;International Navigation Co. v. Farr & Bailey 181 U.S. 218; for its application by English courts, v. e.g. Dobell v. S.S. Rossmore [1895] 2 Q.B.4o8; Standard Oil Co. v. Clan Line [1924] A.C.1oo.
Art. 1147 and art. 1315 c. civ.; Audouin, Dor 7.1, 8; Anon. Dor 2.252.
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 1976 Martinus Nijhoff, The Hague, Netherlands
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Clarke, M.A. (1976). The History of the Carrier’s Liability. In: Aspects of the Hague Rules. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-011-8854-8_11
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-011-8854-8_11
Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht
Print ISBN: 978-94-011-8199-0
Online ISBN: 978-94-011-8854-8
eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive