Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

in all respects seaworthy, he should not be responsible for loss or damage resulting from faults in the navigation or management of the vessel, or from dangers of the sea, and other specified perils not attributable to negligence on the part of the carrier. The Act also declared that it was the duty of the owner, master, or agent of the vessel to issue to the shipper a bill of lading stating, among other things, the marks necessary for identification of the goods shipped, and their number, quantity, or weight, as the case might be, and the apparent order or condition of the goods received by or on behalf of the shipowner, and further declared that the bill of lading should be prima facie evidence against the carrier of the receipt of the goods therein described. Finally, the Act made the shipowner or his representative liable to a fine for a violation of any of its provisions. The Act has continued in operation for twenty-three years. Acts similar in substance or policy to the Harter Act, though differing in details from the Harter Act and each other, were passed in Australia in 1904, Fiji in 1906, New Zealand in 1908, and Canada in 1910. Legislation on similar lines is being considered in South Africa, France, Holland, and the Scandinavian countries. Recently the British Imperial Shipping Committee held an inquiry on the subject of bills of lading in connection with overseas trade within the British Empire, and, after taking evidence, recommended uniformity of legislation in the British and Colonial Parliaments on the lines of the Canadian Act of 1910. The policy embodied in the Harter Act has, therefore, after many years of experience, commended itself to business men in every quarter of the world.

One of the disadvantages of the Harter Act and the Colonial Statutes referred to is that they are necessarily local in their application, and they all differ from each other. So far from simplifying bills of lading, the result has rather been to add to their complexity. A British shipowner, for example, on whose behalf a bill of lading is issued in the United States, is bound by the Harter Act to comply with its provisions. For many years this has been done by adding to the numerous clauses in the bill of lading a clause paramount to the effect that the shipment is subject to all the provisions of the Harter Act. The result is that the bill of lading probably contains clauses which are inconsistent with the Act, and are therefore made inoperative by the clause paramount. Lord Esher, in 1895, described such bills of lading as clumsy to the last degree"; but, as the use of them has since continued, it may be inferred that a better method of giving effect to such legislation has been impracticable.

[ocr errors]

A glance at the usual bill of lading issued in America by the regular steamship lines would show that it is a very complicated document, and contains a large number of clauses in small print. If business men had the leisure to read them, they might have some difficulty in understanding some of them, and they would not unlikely arrive at different conclusions as to their legal effect. As to which conclusion was right, only a decision of the highest appellate tribunal might finally determine. The difficulty is that in construing a bill of lading, regard must be had to all the clauses it contains, the particular Act to which it may be subject, the warranties or terms implied by common law, and any previous legal decisions which may have some bearing on the construction of the document. Further, the meaning or legal effect of a bill of lading may depend on the law of the particular country where the dispute may have to be decided by legal proceedings or arbitration.

Another disadvantage of the Acts referred to is that they are in no sense codes. The Canadian statute is the latest and most complete model of legislation on the subject, and it was recommended by the Imperial Shipping Committee for general adoption throughout the British Empire. But, like the Harter Act, it merely prohibits the insertion in bills of lading of certain exemptions from liability for unseaworthiness and negligence, and makes them void if they are inserted. It also provides in favour of carriers certain exemptions from liability, which are wider than those in the Harter Act, and contains similar provisions for the issue of a bill of lading. Unlike the Harter Act, it limits the carrier's liability for loss or damage to one hundred dollars per package, unless a higher value is stated in the bill of lading.

During the summer of 1921, the Report of the Imperial Shipping Committee, and the evidence given before it, were carefully considered at a Conference of the Maritime Law Committee of the International Law Association. With a view to the international adoption of a bill of lading which would be simple, uniform, reasonable, and suitable for general use in overseas trade, a code of rules was drafted embodying the terms which, speaking generally, merchants, bankers, and underwriters desired. In the autumn the draft was submitted at a Conference of the Maritime Law Committee held at the Hague under the chairmanship and guidance of Sir Henry Duke, the President of the Probate, Divorce, and Admiralty Division of the High Court and of the Prize Court in England. Leading representatives of shipowners, merchants, bankers, and underwriters in England and other Maritime States attended the Conference and took an active part in the discussions of the proposed rules. The representatives of the shipowners submitted certain amendments, and these, with the draft rules, were discussed in detail. Agreement was reached on all points, and a code, which was then named The Hague Rules, 1921," was approved unanimously, and was recommended by the International Law Association for international adoption.

[ocr errors]

The Rules consist of seven Articles. The first Article is an a

interpretation clause. Its importance consists in the effect it has of limiting the application of the Rules to contracts of carriage contained in bills of lading, and their operation to the period from the time the goods are received by the carrying ship to the time when they are unloaded from her. The Imperial Shipping Committee recommended in their Report that the legislation which they suggested should apply only from the actual loading until the unloading. To this recommendation the Hague Rules have given effect. The sixth Article expressly leaves the carrier and the shipper free to make any bargain they please as to the liability of the carrier in connection with the goods prior to the loading or subsequent to the unloading. The Rules, therefore, do not apply to any of the auxiliary services which shipowners or their agents may render to goods before they are shipped for carriage by sea, or after they are discharged; such as collecting, warehousing, forwarding, distributing, or transporting them to or from the ship which carries them by sea. Through bills of lading, or other bills of lading which provide for such services, will probably continue to contain clauses stating the conditions on which such services will be rendered.

The second Article in effect provides that under every bill of lading the carrier by sea shall be subject to the liabilities set out in the third Article, and entitled to the immunities in the fourth. The third and fourth Articles constitute a self-contained and comprehensive code of rules which define the risks which are to be taken by the carrier, and those which are to be borne by the owner of the goods. Whilst goods are on board a ship they are exposed to risks of being damaged or lost, owing to the ship being unseaworthy or unfit at the commencement of her voyage to receive or carry the goods safely on the agreed voyage, or owing to negligence on the part of the carrier or his servants, or negligence of the shipper, or owing to perils of the sea or other causes not attributable to unseaworthiness or negligence. The Rules apportion these risks

between the carrier and the owner of the goods in the way the Harter Act and Colonial Statutes in effect have done, and in the manner which experience has shown to those concerned in the carriage of goods by sea to be just or convenient. The carrier has to bear the risk of loss or damage to the goods arising from the following causes : first, unseaworthiness or unfitness of the ship due to the failure of the carrier or his servants or agents to exercise due diligence before and at the commencement of the voyage to make the ship seaworthy, or to make the holds, refrigerating chambers, or any part of the ship in which goods are carried, fit and safe for their reception, carriage, and preservation; secondly, negligence of the carrier or his servants or agents in the handling, loading, stowage, carriage, custody, care, or unloading of the goods. On the other hand, the owner of the goods has, in the absence of express stipulation to the contrary in the bill of lading, to bear the risk of loss or damage to them arising from the following causes: first, unseaworthiness not caused by want of due diligence on the part of the carrier or his servants or agents, or latent defects not discoverable by due diligence; secondly, negligence of the ship's mariners in the navigation or management of the ship; thirdly, perils of the sea, fire, and any other cause of loss or damage not attributable to negligence on the part of the carrier or his servants; fourthly, deviation from the usual or authorised course of the voyage in saving or attempting to save life or property at sea ; fifthly, inherent vice of the goods or insufficiency of packing or marks; sixthly, any act or omission of the shipper or owner of the goods or his agent; seventhly, the dangerous nature of the goods, unless their nature and character were declared in writing by the shipper before shipment, and the carrier or his agent has consented to their shipment; and, lastly, the owner of the goods has to bear any loss or damage to them if their nature or value has been wilfully misstated by the shipper.

The incidence of the risks referred to is not left by the Rules to depend on any implied warranty of seaworthiness or any implied duty to use reasonable care, or on local Statutes, or on express exceptions in bills of lading, or on the uncertain results of interpretation by Courts or arbitrators of their combined effect. Under every bill of lading, to which the Rules are made applicable, the incidence of loss or damage ought in most cases to be reasonably clear when the facts are known or ascertained. The burden generally lies upon the carrier of proving that the loss or damage was due to a cause for which he is not responsible. He is

protected from belated claims for loss or damage by a provision that, unless written notice of claim is given to him or his agent at the port of discharge before the removal of the goods, such removal will be prima facie evidence of the delivery of the goods as described in the bill of lading, and in any event he will be discharged from all liability unless suit is brought within a year after the delivery of the goods. When the carrier is responsible, his liability is limited in any event to an amount not exceeding £100 per package or unit, unless the nature and value of the goods lost or damaged were declared by the shipper before the goods were shipped, and were inserted in the bill of lading. The limitation will not, however, be of much protection to carriers if the average value of packages or single articles carried is considerably less than £100, or if it is nearer the limit of one hundred dollars fixed by the Canadian Act. The Rules prohibit the parties from stipulating for a lower limit of liability.

The Rules permit the carrier to insert in any bill of lading any terms surrendering, in favour of the owner of the goods, any of the rights or immunities given to the carrier under the Rules; but they do not permit the carrier to contract himself out of liability for negligence or failure of duty in connection with the seaworthiness of the ship or the care of the goods, except in the special circumstances provided for in the fifth Article. The Rules, like the Harter Act and Colonial Statutes, make null and void any clause in a bill of lading which purports to avoid or lessen such liability. Subject to this important restriction, there is nothing in the Rules to prevent the continued use of special forms of bills of lading which have been designed for and are used in particular trades. The fifth Article, however, gives effect to a recommendation of the Imperial Shipping Committee, that in any code provision should be made for the exception of any particular goods, to which, for business reasons, the general rules might be inappropriate, or so burdensome on shipowners as to fetter trade or discourage fresh developments or new enterprises. The Article gives the carrier and shipper liberty, in regard to any particular goods, to enter into any agreement on any terms as to the carrier's liability for such goods, including his obligations as to seaworthiness or the care of the goods; but it requires that the terms agreed should be embodied in a receipt, which will be a non-negotiable document and must be marked as such, and it also provides that no bill of lading must be issued for goods carried under such special contract. The other Articles only apply to bills of lading

« AnteriorContinuar »