12.07.2015 Views

the travaux préparatoires hague rules hague-visby rules - Comite ...

the travaux préparatoires hague rules hague-visby rules - Comite ...

the travaux préparatoires hague rules hague-visby rules - Comite ...

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS
  • No tags were found...

Create successful ePaper yourself

Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.

190 COMITE MARITIME INTERNATIONALThe Travaux Préparatoires of <strong>the</strong> Hague and Hague-Visby Rulesmany men who were at <strong>the</strong> Hague who are here, we all deliberately intended to includea bill of lading that was put in circulation whe<strong>the</strong>r under a charter or without a charter.The test was: is <strong>the</strong> bill of lading put in circulation? If so, it comes under <strong>the</strong> Rules, I understoodthat we were all agreed at <strong>the</strong> Hague that we did not want to interfere with absolutefreedom of contract in regard to <strong>the</strong> chartering of ships, so long as <strong>the</strong> transactionwas carried out throughout strictly under <strong>the</strong> terms of that charter, and <strong>the</strong>re was nochance of any [360] uninformed person becoming interested under any bills of ladingor similar documents in <strong>the</strong> cargo. That was so carried. That is right, Sir, is it not?The Chairman: Sir Norman Hill appeals to me. My recollection is entirely in accordancewith what he has just said. That was what I understood to be <strong>the</strong> view of <strong>the</strong>businessmen who agreed upon what I may call <strong>the</strong> Hague compact.Afternoon sitting of 10 October 1922[370]Sir Leslie Scott: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .The Rules as <strong>the</strong>y are drafted in Article 3(3), say this: “After receiving <strong>the</strong> goods intohis charge [371] <strong>the</strong> carrier or master or agent of <strong>the</strong> carrier shall on <strong>the</strong> demand of<strong>the</strong> shipper issue a bill of lading showing amongst o<strong>the</strong>r things” so and so. That is <strong>the</strong>original Hague Rules. The alteration made in <strong>the</strong> amended Rules is purely verbal; itsays: “shall on demand issue to <strong>the</strong> shipper a bill of lading showing amongst o<strong>the</strong>rthings” so and so. That bill of lading is ei<strong>the</strong>r to be <strong>the</strong> contract between <strong>the</strong> partiescontaining all <strong>the</strong> terms of <strong>the</strong>se <strong>rules</strong> or it is to remain a mere receipt as between thoseoriginal parties, <strong>the</strong> charterer and <strong>the</strong> shipowner, <strong>the</strong> contract being still contained in<strong>the</strong> charter party. Which of those two solutions is <strong>the</strong> best one in business, is a matterthat commercial men must discuss and decide. All I want to do is to get that clear, andI want to see whe<strong>the</strong>r Sir Stephen Demetriadi is following my point, because he representssome important cargo interests and it is essential that <strong>the</strong>y should appreciate<strong>the</strong> point of substance that is involved. I asked a question of Sir Norman Hill when hewas addressing us so clearly and lucidly as he did; would <strong>the</strong> shipowner who has enteredinto a charter be entitled to say to <strong>the</strong> charterer: If you want a bill of lading whichex hypo<strong>the</strong>si of course will be a bill of lading incorporating <strong>the</strong>se Rules, because <strong>the</strong>seRules will be a matter of law, I want an extra freight? If <strong>the</strong> bill of lading is to remaina mere receipt of course <strong>the</strong> question would be meaningless. If <strong>the</strong> bill of lading is tosupersede <strong>the</strong> charter as regards <strong>the</strong> terms of carriage it is a question of great moment.The Chairman: He is to say that at <strong>the</strong> time of making <strong>the</strong> charter.Sir Leslie Scott: He is to say that at <strong>the</strong> time of [372] making <strong>the</strong> charter or after<strong>the</strong> charter has been made. You must decide which it is to be. Anyhow even althoughas between <strong>the</strong> charterer and <strong>the</strong> shipowner <strong>the</strong> bill of lading may remain a mere receipt,if <strong>the</strong> charterer negotiates that bill of lading, it will become <strong>the</strong> contract of carriageas between <strong>the</strong> endorsee for value and <strong>the</strong> shipowner, and <strong>the</strong>n put upon <strong>the</strong>shipowner all <strong>the</strong> obligations of <strong>the</strong> Hague Rules, which ex hypo<strong>the</strong>si would <strong>the</strong>n havebecome law. Consequently that question of <strong>the</strong> relation of chartered shipments to<strong>the</strong>se proposals is one upon which a decision is necessary as to what is wanted, and<strong>the</strong>n only a very few words are needed to make it clear that that wish of <strong>the</strong> commercialcommunity is successfully expressed in <strong>the</strong> Hague Rules. (Applause).The Chairman: I do not know if Sir Stephen Demetriadi would wish to say anythingupon what Sir Leslie Scott has just said?Sir Stephen Demetriadi: May I ask Dr. Eric Jackson to answer on behalf of <strong>the</strong>Federation. He is our legal adviser.Dr. Eric Jackson: I am really answering <strong>the</strong> Solicitor General and not <strong>the</strong> ConferenceI take it?

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!