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

24 COMITE MARITIME INTERNATIONALThe Travaux Préparatoires of the Hague and Hague-Visby Rulessuch as those of the Harter Act for the introduction of obligatory conditions in bills oflading.It was under the circumstances above stated that the Committee deemed it desirableto give their attention in the first place to the conditions under which goods arecarried by sea under bills of lading, bearing in mind, however, that a lawfully issuedbill of lading binds a ship whether issued on behalf of the owner or of the charterer.For the purpose of eliciting opinion upon the salient points of principle, the discussionwas conducted with reference to a questionnaire submitted by the Chairman.The questions so raised were dealt with in the order in which we proceed to set themforth.Question 1. - Whether the freedom of contract on the part of the shipowner withregard to carriage of goods by sea should be absolute or should be limited by legislation?Sir Norman Hill, while declaring his personal conviction that the permanent interestsof both parties to the contract and of the whole community are best served bymaintenance of the mutual right to make their bargains without legislative interference,stated his belief that shipowners as a class are desirous of rendering all the serviceswhich owners of cargo in fact require, and invited a plain statement of the matters,if any, in respect of which compulsory regulations are called for. Sir Alan Andersonand Mr. Temperley made further exposition of the views of various classes ofshipowners.Mr. McConechy informed the Committee that the Manchester Chamber of Commerceand the Manchester Association of Importers and Exporters were in generalagreement with the proposals set forth in the Report of the Imperial Shipping Committee.He advocated the adoption of international regulations whereby shipownersshould be answerable in all cases for loss and damage due to unseaworthiness of theship, inclusive of any harmful or improper condition of the ship’s hold, and for defaultin lading, custody and care, and unloading of goods; and should be exempt from liabilityin respect of perils of the sea and of navigation (including perils due to negligentnavigation, act of God, and the King’s enemies), insufficient packing and seizure underlegal process. Mr. McConechy stated as his opinion that bills of lading drawn inconformity with the Water Carriage of Goods Act, 1910, of the Dominion of Canada,would provide all necessary safeguards to cargo owners.Dr. Rombach gave particulars of a draft of proposed legislation in Holland, wherebythe liabilities of shipowners would, he thought, probably be defined with the concurrenceof shipowners and cargo owners, and advocated the adoption of internationalstatutory rules which would render shipowners liable in all events for lossescaused by want of reasonable care and diligence, with a maximum in pecuniaryamount of statutory liability fixed at per parcel shipped.Dr. van Slooten supported, in the interests of uniformity, the adoption of a codefounded on the Harter Act and the Canadian statute, and with Dr. Rombach took theview that Dutch shipowners would be prepared to accept an international settlementon these lines.The views of the majority of the Committee were expressed in favour of a uniformsystem of law among maritime States whereby liability for losses caused by defect ofship or default in the handling and custody of goods should be obligatory upon theshipowner, provided that - in the words of Section 6 of the Canadian statute - “if theowner. . . exercises due diligence to make the ship in all respects seaworthy and prop-