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

206 COMITE MARITIME INTERNATIONALThe Travaux Préparatoires of the Hague and Hague-Visby Rulesliners, are concerned, I do not think there will be any difficulty in taking (b) and (c)together in the way I have suggested. It is very difficult to suggest a solution, but onedoes appreciate that “The number of packages or pieces, the quantity or weight” arenot very appropriate when you are dealing with a full cargo carried under a charterparty.I do not think it is possible to give full effect to what I personally understand tobe the wishes of the cargo interests, to distinguish between a tramp bill of lading anda liner bill of lading. I think a bill of lading is a bill of lading. If it is a fully negotiabledocument I do not think in law is possible to distinguish between the one that is issuedby the liner and the one issued by the tramp. I do not think it would be satisfactory toanybody. I do not think it would be satisfactory to the tramp if he was putting on tothe market, for the purpose of assisting the credit of the merchants and the bankers,anything in the nature of an inferior bill of lading. I do not think that would be fair orright. It would be oppressive on the tramp, and it seems to me, so long as it is a negotiablebill of lading it will have to come under the code. If it comes under the code, itis possible to think of any words, to be put into what will be now paragraph (b), qualifyingthe responsibility in regard to - I would prefer it if it were possible - the bulk cargoes?I do not think it would be a very happy way of putting it to qualify it by sayingthat these are bills of lading issued in respect of a cargo carried on a ship which hasbeen chartered.The Chairman: Sir Norman, might I suggest that you are at present speaking towhat, I think, technically would be a proviso upon Article 3(3)? It seems to me to complicatea little the question of the amendments, which I think are little more than draftingamendments, which you are actually proposing in 3 (b).Sir Norman Hill: I quite follow your point, Sir: it would be another sub-section.[87]The Chairman: It would be in the nature of a proviso.Sir Norman Hill: It would be in the nature of a proviso; but I wanted to make mypoint now, because, if we can agree what you describe as mere drafting amendments,incorporating (b) and (c), I would not like the Committee to feel that when I came witha proviso that I had some other point that I wanted to raise, and it is a big point I wantto raise in the proviso. If I have sufficiently indicated it I have finished, but in passing(b) and (c) I would like the Committee to realise that I think that in the cargo interests,and in the tramp interests, we always call them tramps; I hope it is not resentedby any of the other nations.Mr. Robert Temperley: Might I suggest to Sir Norman Hill that it would be verymuch more convenient if we decided first on the principle of the proviso?Sir Norman Hill: Might I support the Chairman’s suggestion that we deal with (b)and (c) on the distinct understanding that there will be a proviso?The Chairman: I do not think the Committee ought to be bound in advance to acceptthe proviso. I think the amendment must stand upon its merits. It is a little morethan a drafting amendment, but it has such obvious recommendations that it does notseem to me that in itself it would interfere with business transactions. I know what itmeans, I think.[96]The Chairman: Now I think we are ready to deal with the amendments. We wereupon Article 3(3) (b) and (c), and the question was whether at the end of 3 (b) weshould insert the words “or the”; so that, as I understand, the shipowner should beobliged either to give a bill of lading showing the number of packages or pieces, or abill of lading showing the quantity or weight?