Advertisement

Due Diligence in General

Chapter
  • 38 Downloads

Abstract

An obligation to exercise due diligence is to my mind indistinguishable from an obligation to exercise reasonable care – a concept not unfamiliar in English law….1

Keywords

Latent Defect Short Route Force Majeure Reduction Gear Reasonable Care 
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. 1.
    The Muncaster Castle [1960] 1 Q.B. 536, 581 per Willmer L.J.Google Scholar
  2. Wilson & Clyde Coal Co. y English [1938] A.C. 57,80 per Ld. Wright; Davie v. New Merton Board Mills [1959] A.C. 604, 651–2. Tesco Supermarkets v. Nattrass [1972] A.C. 153, 199 per Lord Diplock. In the U.S.A. see Peter Paul v. M.S. Christer Salen (1957) 152 F. Supp. 410.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    The Muncaster Castle [1960] 1 Q.B. 536, 559; v. also Wilimer L.J. at p. 587.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    ] A.C. 8o7.Google Scholar
  5. 7.
    Jolowicz 1960 Camb. L.J. 17, 1961 Camb. L. J. 165. Riska pp. 94, 102. Cf. Villareal 2 J.M.L.C. 763.Google Scholar
  6. 8.
    The Amstelslot [1962] r Lloyd’s Rep. 539, 553 per McNair J.; [1963] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 223, 235 per Ld. Devlin. Leesh River Tea Co. v. B.I.S.N. [1967] 2 Q.B. 250, 277 per Salmon L.J. Cf. The Dimitrios N. Rallias (1922) 13 L1.L.R. 363, 365.Google Scholar
  7. 9.
    Rodière nos. 497 bis and 618; Rodière Précis nos. 315, 388.Google Scholar
  8. 10.
    Generally, v. Ripert et Boulanger, Traité de Droit Civil t. II nos. 779 ff.; Demogue, Obligations no. 1237; Marton, Rev. Trimestrielle de Droit Civil 1935. 499; Carbonnier, Droit Civil t. 4 no. 71; Mazeaud, Leçons de Droit Civil t. 2 no. 21; Mazeaud Rev. Trimestrielle de Droit Civil 1936.1; Planiol et Ripert, Traité Pratique de Droit Civil, t. VI nos. 376 ff.; Tunc, S.J. 1945–1–449–Google Scholar
  9. 11.
    Mazeaud, Leçons loc. cit.Google Scholar
  10. 12.
    Op. cit. no. 378 ter.Google Scholar
  11. 13.
    Thus Tunc, op. cit. no. 4, says of the doctor’s duty to his patient: “Le médecin ne s’engage pas à guérir, mais à donner des soins conscientieux, attentifs et conformes aux données acquises de la science. Il s’oblige à employer les moyens en son pourvoir pour arriver à un résultat qui reste extérieur au contrat. L’objet de l’obligation est différent.”Google Scholar
  12. 14.
    Mazeaud, Rev. Trimestrielle de Droit Civil 1936. I no. 48.Google Scholar
  13. 15.
    See e.g. Aubrun D. 37.4.18 citing Belgian cases such as Baron Kinneard, T.C. Anvers 22.3.35, Dor 34.156; Brussels 22.5.31, Dor 25.122. Also Emo J.C.P. 52—I-967 and de Juglart Sem. Jur. 56—Ií.9135.Google Scholar
  14. 18.
    D. 37.4.18.Google Scholar
  15. 17.
    Dor 7.1, 17; cf. Besse D.M.F. 68.451, 454; Villareal 2 J.M.L.C. 763, 766.Google Scholar
  16. 18.
    Transports Internationaux p. 131.Google Scholar
  17. 19.
    Oceanic 11.6.48, D.M.F. 50.65; also Brussels 22.5.30, Dor 25. 122.Google Scholar
  18. 20.
    Tensi/t, T.C. Seine 20.2.51, D.M.F. 52.514 (S), summarised in J.C.P. 52—I-967 no. 12 and adopted by Pourcelet no. 57.Google Scholar
  19. 21.
    Infra ch. 15 no. I.Google Scholar
  20. 22.
  21. 23.
    Finistère, Montpellier 14.11.51, D.M.F. 52,87; Stilbé, Montpellier 26.2.52, D.M.F. 53.8; Leconte de Lisle, T.C. Marseille 19.3.54, D.M.F. 55.165; Mintaka ‘N’, T.C. Rouen 9.3.62, D.M.F. 63.407; Tensift, T.C. Seine 20.2.51, D.M.F. 52.514 (S). For a tendency to equate all exceptions in the Rules with those in L36 see Julia C. Ertel, T.C. Paris 15.5.68, D.M.F. 69. 234.Google Scholar
  22. 24.
    ] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 336, 345.Google Scholar
  23. 26.
    Cf. the use of `latent’ to mean simply ‘hidden’: London & Rangoon Trading v. Ellerman Lines (1923) 14 L1.L.R. 497, 508; The Dimitrios N. Rallias (1922) 13 L1.L.R. 363, 366; Pearce v. Round Oak Steel Works [1969] 1 W.L.R. 595, 596. Cf. also Cranjield Bros. v. Tatem S.N. Co. (1939) 64 Ll.L.R. 264, 271, where Hilbery J., having found that the carrier had used due diligence concerning a defective rivet, said that “there would be great difficulty in the way of saying…that this was a latent defect.” He did not explain.Google Scholar
  24. 27.
    Rodière nos. 648, 649; D.M.F. 62.335; D.M.F. 67.323; Ripert no. 1808; Marais, Transports Internationaux p. 132; Aubrun D. 37.4.8; de Juglart Sem. Jur. 56–11. 9135. In the cases v. Zelidja T.C.Havre 14.2.56, Rouen 1.2.57, D.M.F. 57. 418.Google Scholar
  25. 28.
    Differences of detail are considered later.Google Scholar
  26. 29.
    Dor 7.1, 4.Google Scholar
  27. 30.
    Rodière, Précis no. 362, echoed by the cases: Guinée, Rouen 8.11.52, D.M.F. 53.84; Gladstone, T.C. Marseille 18.12.53, D.M.F. 54.354; Marseillaise, Rabat 15.6.54, D.M.F. 55.223; Lord Gladstone, Saigon 6.10.54, D.M.F. 56.139; P.-E. Javary, Rouen 13.1.55, D.M.F. 56.145; Compiègne, Paris 24.10.55, D.M.F. 56.153; Algeria 313, Rouen 10.2.56, D.M.F. 57.13; Zeldija, Rouen 1.2.57, D•M•F. 57. 418; Cérons, Paris 3.5.57, D.M.F. 58. 397; Ban/ora, Aix 28.5.57, D.M.F. 58.89, Tamara, Aix 4.6.57, D.M.F. 58.337; Merkurius, Paris 19.6.59, D.M.F. 60.86; Maneah, Rennes 17.2.60, D.M.F. 61.231; Bourgogne, Sent. 27.2.61, D.M.F. 61.749; Berkans, T.C. Marseille 5.3.71, D.M.F. 71.721; Pointe Marin, T.C. Havre 9.5.72, D.M.F. 72.497. For a similar formula for latent defects in a ship sold, see Gwalarn, Rennes 23.10.67, D.M.F. 68. 608.Google Scholar
  28. 31.
    Traité Pratique de Droit Civil (i952) t. VI no. 378 bis.Google Scholar
  29. 32.
    Dimopoulos pp. 213–4.Google Scholar
  30. 33.
    T.C. Marseille 9.12.58, D.M.F. 59. 553.Google Scholar
  31. 34.
    Aix 27.6.61, D.M.F. 62.740.Google Scholar
  32. 36.
    See also Trois Soeurs, C. de C. 26.11. 1898, Autran XIV.329: “la voie d’eau avait été le résultat de forces combinées et invisibles ayant agi en dehors de toutes prévisions,” and hence was a case of force majeure. Pacific Express, T.C. Dieppe 16.9.49, Gaz. Pal. 49.2.293: “Attendu… qu’il est prévisible qu’un filtre s’obstrue… qu’il est donc d’une diligence raisonnable de vérifier et nettoyer les filtres.” Ogogue, Rabat 30.6.53, D.M.F. 54.586: “la formation imprévisible d’une voie d’eau” is a latent defect. Andreina Marsano, Sent. 13.11.56, D.M.F. 57. 220: “le mauvais fonctionnement des appareils frigorifiques ne saurait être considéré comme un cas fortuit et de force majeure impossible de prévoir.” Tamara, Aix 4.6.57, D.M.F. 58.337: “le vice caché est celui qui, par son caractère imprévisible, a échappé à une vigilance constante.” Cap Farina, T.C. Sète 23.6.67, D.M.F. 68.223: “on doit entendre par le vice caché du navire… tous défauts échappant à un contrôle minutieux des techniciens et se révélant subitement d’une manière imprévisible et irrésistible.” Rodière D.M.F. 62. 335, 337.Google Scholar
  33. 97.
    T.C. Rouen 8.2.68, D.M.F. 68.548; Herculis, Paris 5.2.62, D.M.F. 62.345; for a similar interpretation, see Chaland F, Paris 29.10.24, Dor Sup. 2.873; Euphorbia, Pau 25.6.34, Dor Sup. 12.355, Dor 30.329 (Harter Act).Google Scholar
  34. 38.
    Ville d’Anvers, 30.6.72, D.M.F. 72.722, 725; Cassarate, Aix 4.5.72, D.M.F. 72.662; Container-Forwarder, Paris 21.6.72, D.M.F. 72.675; Esbern Snare, Aix 20.12.72, D.M.F. 74.240 (S); Jongkind, T.C. Paris 10.1.73, D.M.F. 73.610; Heidi Wiards, T.C. Paris 2.4.73, D.M.F. 74.296; Koudekerk, Aix 9.5.73, D.M.F. 73.654. Cf. Cassarate, T.C. Marseille 7.9.71, D.M.F. 72. 366.Google Scholar
  35. 39.
    Balvy, Poitiers 9.5.73, D.M.F. 73.659; Biafra, Rouen, 3.11.72, D.M.F. 73.650. 49 Med Star, Paris 4.12.73, D.M.F. 74. 233.Google Scholar
  36. 41.
    Infra ch. 15 no. 2 (ii) and (iii).Google Scholar
  37. 42.
    Tensift, T.C. Seine 20.2.51, D.M.F. 52.554 (S); Oceanic, T.C. Dunkerque 14.1.52, D.M.F. 52.424; Gladstone, T.C. Marseille /8.12.53, D.M.F. 54.354; Lord Gladstone, Saigon 6.10.54, D.M.F. 56.139; Compiègne, Paris 24.10.55, D.M.F. 56.153; Zelidja, Rouen 1.2.57, D.M.F. 57.418; Cirons, Paris 3.5.57, D.M.F. 58.397; Ban/ora, Aix 28.5.57, D.M.F. 58.89; Maneah, Rennes 17.2.60, D.M.F. 61.231. Cf. Tamara, Aix 4.6.57, D.M.F. 58.337 and Rodière, Précis no. 362 which appear to take a more lenient view.Google Scholar
  38. 43.
    ) 13 LI.L.R. 363, 366.Google Scholar
  39. 44.
    Italics supplied. The bill of lading contained a clause excepting perils of the sea provided that the ship was seaworthy. A further clause provided that “any latent defects in the hull and/or machinery shall not be considered unseaworthiness.”Google Scholar
  40. 45.
    Paris 24.10.55, D.M.F. 56.153.Google Scholar
  41. 46.
    Maneah, Rennes 37.2.60, D.M.F. 61. 281.Google Scholar
  42. 47.
    T.C. Seine 22.6.55, D.M.F. 56.166; Paris 21.2.57, D.M.F. 58.21; Comm. 20.2.62, D.M.F. 62.335; Markianos p. 136.Google Scholar
  43. 48.
    The Amstelslot [1962] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 336, 345, approved in the House of Lords by Lord Evershed [1963] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 223, 231. See also Lord Denning M.R. in the Court of Appeal at p. 341.Google Scholar
  44. 49.
    Cf. the more conventional attempt to define latent defect in the sale of goods: “something that could not have been discovered at the time by any examination which in the light of then existing knowledge it was reasonable to make” — Hardwick Game Farm v. S.A.P.P.A. [1968] 3 W.L.R. 11o, 122 per Lord Reid.Google Scholar
  45. 50.
    ] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 223, 230–1.Google Scholar
  46. 51.
    Lloyd’s Rep. 223, 233.Google Scholar
  47. 52.
    ] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 336, 347.Google Scholar
  48. 53.
    Infra. ch. 15.Google Scholar
  49. 54.
    Supra ch. 12.Google Scholar
  50. 55.
    Scrutton R.J.C. Ev. no. 443; Rodière D.M.F. 67.323, 324.Google Scholar
  51. 56.
    See e.g. Wright J. in Anglise v. P. & O. S.N. Co. [1927] 2 K.B. 456, 464; Diplock L.J. in The Amstelslot [1962] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 336, 315.Google Scholar
  52. 57.
    De Juglart Sem. Jur. 56—II. 9135 citing Aubrun.Google Scholar
  53. 58.
    Jackson v. Mum/ord (1903) 8 Corn. Cas. 61, 68, 69 per Kennedy J.; Carver no. 29o. Infra ch. 15 no. 2 (ii).Google Scholar
  54. 60.
    Infra ch. 15 no. I.Google Scholar
  55. 61.
    Rodière nos. 756 and 764; see also Tetley p. 151 who, surprisingly, appears to agree. Infra ch. 16 no. 3.Google Scholar
  56. 62.
    Corporacion Argentina de Productores de Carnes v. Royal Mail Lines (1939) 64 L1.L.R. 188, 192 per Branson J.; The Amstelslot [1963] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 223, 23o per Lord Reid.Google Scholar
  57. 68.
    Marais, Les Transports Internationaux p. 133. Cf. the words of Porter J. in Charles Brown & Co. v. Nitrate Producers Steamship Co. (1937) 58 Ll.L.R. 188, 192 that art. III r. r refers to a duty to provide equipment, while art. IV r. 2 (p) refers to duties of maintenance; there is no basis in the authorities for such a distinction. Cf. also Rodière no. 649: “La différence tient d’abord à ce que l’innavigabilité (art. IV r. r) peut résulter d’un vice apparent.” This is literally true; but it should be recalled that the exonerating cause is not simply unseaworthiness but unseaworthiness not caused by any want of due diligence; if the defect is apparent there will not have been due diligence. Cf. also the view of Prodromides that the carrier who pleads latent defect will not be liable for the negligence of independent contractors: C.M.I. Documentation, Stockholm Conference p. 521.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Martinus Nijhoff, The Hague, Netherlands 1976

Authors and Affiliations

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations