Advertisement

The History of the Carrier’s Liability

Chapter
  • 42 Downloads

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.

Keywords

Strict Liability English Court Common Carrier Time Charter French Court 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 14.
    Discussed infra no .4 (i); generally, v. Ripert nos. 1399, 2687 and 1720.Google Scholar
  2. 16.
    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.Google Scholar
  3. 17.
    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.Google Scholar
  4. 20.
    (1828) 5 Bing. 227, 22o; v. also Holt L.J. cited supra no. r.Google Scholar
  5. 22.
    Generally, v. R. David, “Les Grands Systèmes de Droit Contemporains” nos. 67 and 319.Google Scholar
  6. 23.
    Per James L J in Nugent v. Smith (1876) r C.P.D.423, 444.Google Scholar
  7. 84.
    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.Google Scholar
  8. 26.
    Per Willes J. in Blower v. G.W.R. (1872) L.R.7 C.P.655, 662.Google Scholar
  9. 33.
    Ripert no. 1709; cf. Rodière no. 6zo.Google Scholar
  10. 36.
    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.Google Scholar
  11. 37.
    Cf. Ripert no. 1721.Google Scholar
  12. 38.
    Dimopoulos no. 95; cf. Ripert no. 1722 who is reluctant to give examples.Google Scholar
  13. 40.
    ] 2 K.B. 740.Google Scholar
  14. 41.
    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.Google Scholar
  15. 42.
  16. 45.
    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).Google Scholar
  17. 47.
    Ripert no. 1735.Google Scholar
  18. 48.
    Taylor v. Caldwell (1863) 3 B. & S. 826; Jackson v. Union Marine Ins. Co. (1874) L.R. Io C.P. 125..Google Scholar
  19. 56.
    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.Google Scholar
  20. 57.
    Kopitoff y Wilson (1876), 3 Asp. M.L.C. 163, 165 per Field J.Google Scholar
  21. 58.
    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.Google Scholar
  22. 63.
    McFadden v. Blue Star Line [1905] i K.B. 697, 706 per Channell J.; Carver no. 109; Scrutton p. 82; Shah p. zoo.Google Scholar
  23. 64.
    The Glenfruin (1885) 10 P.D.zo3.Google Scholar
  24. 66.
    Reed v. Page [1927] 1 K.B. 743, 755 per Scrutton L.J.; Carver no. 115; Scrutton p. 81; p. 106.Google Scholar
  25. 67.
    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.Google Scholar
  26. 76.
    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.Google Scholar
  27. 77.
    Waddle v. Wallsend Shipping Co. [1952] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 105, 139 per Devlin J.Google Scholar
  28. 79.
    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.Google Scholar
  29. 80.
    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.Google Scholar
  30. Art. 1147 and art. 1315 c. civ.; Audouin, Dor 7.1, 8; Anon. Dor 2.252.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Martinus Nijhoff, The Hague, Netherlands 1976

Authors and Affiliations

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations