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

PART I - THE HISTORY OF THE HAGUE AND HAGUE-VISBY RULES 25I. From the Origin to the Hague Rules, 1921erly manned, equipped and supplied, neither the ship nor the owner, agent or charterershall become or be held responsible for loss or damage resulting from faults orerrors in navigation or in the management of the ship or from latent defect”.Question 2. - Whether legislative control should be exercised(a) to secure for the shipper an express acknowledgment of receipts of goodsshipped;(b) to secure the statement of the contract of affreightment in uniform terms asto all or part of the subject-matter;(c) or in plain terms which define simply and explicitly the risks accepted by theshipowner and shipper respectively?Sir Norman Hill and other members pointed out the difficulties involved in a compulsorysystem of “shipped” bills of lading without due recognition of the claims ofthe great volume of trade which is carried on upon “received for shipment” bills of lading.Members from Holland agreed in the view that growing difficulty may be expectedfrom the substitution of bills of goods received for shipment in place of bills of ladingupon shipment, and advocated legislative action whereby the issue of a bill of ladingin respect of goods shipped for carriage by sea should be made compulsory forshipowners. They agreed, however, that a condition precedent to the right of the cargoowner to require the issue of a bill of lading upon shipment should be the deliveryup by him of any bill or acknowledgment of goods “received for shipment” which maypreviously have been issued in respect of the same goods. On behalf of shipowners theview was expressed that, subject to such a condition, no objection in principle standsin the way of the compulsory requirement of a plain bill of lading evidencing the factof the shipment of goods specified therein.Assuming the adoption of the principle of compulsory liability of shipowners -with optional immunity - upon lines such as are before indicated, the Committeethought it of some importance to consider in what way expression would best be givento this principle in the terms of bills of lading such as would comply with the requirementsof the suggested international code.The mode which was adopted by the United States of America in the Harter Acthas been followed in the main by the Dominions in their respective statutes. It wouldbe simple to incorporate in a common form bill of lading by words of reference theterms of an international code in the same way as the terms of individual statutes or ofagreed rules are at present being incorporated.Once there were agreement upon rules of international operation, the need for expressstatement in bills of lading would, no doubt, be found to have ceased. In themeantime it would probably be thought proper to incorporate by reference the termsof such statutes as are in fact incorporated, whether by statutory regulations or byagreement.The terms of bills of lading outside the area of statutory definition of liabilitieswould remain matter for agreement and statement according to the bargain of the partiesconcerned.Question 3. - Whether the shipowner should be at liberty to exclude by the contractof affreightment liability on his part for loss or damage (a) generally, or (b) to alimited extent?It must be borne in mind that the Harter Act and the Dominion statutes proceed