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

PART II - HAGUE RULES 217Article 3 (3) (proviso) - When description may be refusedfor the shipowner to take the responsibility of weight and measurement which are unknownto them. As far as the Harter Act is concerned, I do not think really that it iscontrary to the provisions [96] of the Harter Act, and the proof is that in bills of ladingwhich are just now in use in the United States and very likely in accordance withthe Harter Act, you find a condition like this: “Any statement as to the quantity, weightand/or measurement of the goods made in the bill of lading shall not prejudice the carrier,unless the goods have been counted, weighed and/or measured prior to the issueof the bill of lading”. I think something like that, perhaps, would be good, and certainlyit would be a great inducement towards the acceptance of the agreement byFrench shipowners.Mr. Rudolf: I submit, Mr. Chairman, that, with reference to that clause which Mr.De Rousiers has just quoted as appearing in an American bill of lading, that is simplya clause that has been left in, and it has been rendered null and void by the paramountclause, which is the Harter Act, in the bill of lading.[98]Sir Norman Hill: I would propose here a proviso. Shall I read it, Sir?The Chairman: Please.Sir Norman Hill: The proviso I propose at the end of the paragraph is as follows:“Provided that no carrier, master or agent of the carrier shall be bound to issue a billof lading showing description, marks, number, quality, or weight which he has reasonableground for suspecting do not accurately represent the goods actually received”.I do not know, Sir, if it is necessary for me to make any statement in supportof this, but, as I understand it, the whole object of the cargo interest in pressing forthese rules is to make a bill of lading a really sound creditable document for the purposesof getting credit from the bankers, insurance from the underwriters, and generallymaking it as negotiable as possible. Now, Sir, that will be very convenient and veryeffective as between honest men, but it seems to us that it would place a very dangerousinstrument in the hands of dishonest men, if a dishonest man could insist underthe previous clauses which you have passed upon the shipowner issuing on his demanda bill of lading describing a state of cargo [99] which the shipowner knew had neverbeen put on his ship. So we have provided that, if the shipowner has reasonableground for suspecting that the statements made by the shipper do not accurately representthe goods, the shipowner is relieved from the responsibility of complying withthe demand; that is to say, he is relieved from the responsibility of putting on to themarkets of the world what he knows, or reasonably suspects, to be a dishonest document.Mr. Robert Temperley: May I ask this? You read the word “quality”; should thatbe “quantity”?Sir Norman Hill: That should be “quantity”. I am sorry.The Chairman: “Marks, number, quantity”. It is moved by Sir Norman Hill thatthere be added to the clause a proviso “that no carrier, master or agent of the carriershall be bound to issue a bill of lading showing description, marks, number, quantityor weight which he has reasonable ground for suspecting do not accurately representthe goods actually received”. Does any member offer any observation?Sir Alan Anderson: Would not this be a place where we could meet the difficultyof the bulk cargoes? I am personally concerned with ships that carry parcels, so perhapsI may represent myself as impartial.The Chairman: May I say that Sir Norman Hill has handed me the draft of amendmentsupon clause 4 of the same Article which will raise that question? Does any memberdesire to offer any observation upon the proviso? Then the question is that theproviso be added to the clause. Is that agreed? (Agreed).