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

PART II - HAGUE RULES 191Article 3 (3) - Obligation to issue a bill of ladingThe Chairman: Yes.Dr. Eric Jackson: The view of the Federation which I represent is that, if there is abill of lading, whether it is issued under a charter party or not, the Hague Rules will beipso facto incorporated in that bill of lading.Sir Leslie Scott: That is obvious.[373]The Chairman: I do not know whether Dr. Jackson has thought of the question theSolicitor General has asked, namely, whether when a charter party is negotiated in theordinary sense it would be practicable in his view [374] to make that charter party uponthe terms that the charterer should not require bills of lading and so should secureany benefit there was as between shipment under charter party and shipment uponbills of lading. What I understood Sir Leslie Scott to point out was that if there is notsomething in the charter party, using the common phrase, which excludes the right tohave bill of lading the demand may be made, and apparently would be effective underthe Rules for Carriage by Sea.Sir Leslie Scott: If I may just add one word while Dr. Jackson is still there, as theRules are drawn there is an imperative obligation placed upon the shipowner upon thedemand of the shipper to issue a bill of lading. That would seem to apply to everyshipowner entering into a charter party.Dr. Eric Jackson: That is what I think.Sir Leslie Scott: If that is so, then the shipowner who wants to make a charter partyand does not want to enter into a bill of lading contract is deprived of that liberty.Is it the intention of the Conference that he should be so deprived or not? That is thereal question.The Chairman: I think that the question in effect is: is the shipper to be at libertyto renounce in concluding a charter party to the rights which he would obtain underthe proposed statute?Dr. Eric Jackson: I must say that I have never prior to this meeting considered thepossibility of a charter party that did not result in a bill of lading. I know [375] thatthere may be charter parties which do not in terms say that any bill of lading or anyspecial form of bill of lading shall be issued thereunder, but in practice I think as a matterof commerce (you will correct me if I am wrong in this) that a bill of lading is alwaystaken by the shipper for his own purposes whether it is under charter or not.Sir Leslie Scott: It does not always become the contract.Dr. Eric Jackson: That I follow under our English law. Whether it is the same elsewhereI am not certain.Sir Leslie Scott: Is it intended to change that?Dr. Eric Jackson: I think for this purpose it must be intended to change it, SirLeslie.The Chairman: That means to give the charterer the power to take a bill of ladingunder the Rules whether it may or may not have been the intention that he should demandit at the time of the charter.Dr. Eric Jackson: I cannot conceive a charter party where it was not the intentionthat a bill of lading should be issued. But I think probably the view of Sir Norman Hillis correct that, even under these Rules, if a charter party were made excluding the possibilityof any bill of lading being issued, then that charter party would be good, andthere would be no bill of lading, and there would be nothing the Rules could affect.[376]The Chairman: That is just what I think Sir Leslie was asking.Dr. Eric Jackson: That is what I think was Sir Norman Hill’s view this morning,