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

226 COMITE MARITIME INTERNATIONALThe Travaux Préparatoires of the Hague and Hague-Visby RulesCMI 1922 London ConferenceText submitted to the Conference(CMI Bulletin No. 65 - Gothenborg Conference)[364]4. Such a bill of lading shall be prima facie evidence of the receipt by the carrier of thegoods as therein described in accordance with section 3 a), b) and c).Morning sitting of 10 October 1922[327]Mr. Otto Liebe (Denmark) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Then there is another question that is also, at least to us lawyers from a legal pointof view, of paramount importance. You say in these Rules, in Article 4(5), I believe:“The declaration by the shipper as to the nature and value of any goods declared shallbe prima facie evidence, but shall not be binding or conclusive on the carrier”. Now sofar as we can conjecture there are two systems quite different from each other. Thereis the English, and I do not know, but I guess it is also the American, point of view.You say the bill of lading is only prima facie evidence, and therefore the carrier shallnot be deemed responsible towards anyone for the description of the goods in the billof lading, if he is able to show that the description was wrong, and that he was notpersonally in fault. That is one system. The other; I am not quite sure I can call theContinental system, but I at least might be allowed to call it the Scandinavian system.In Sweden, Norway, Finland and [328] Denmark we regard a bill of lading as anegotiable document, and therefore it follows from our laws on negotiable documentsthat the carrier who has signed a bill of lading is responsible towards the bona fidepossessor of the bill of lading for the correctness of the description in the bill of lading,and he is not free from liability, even if he can show that the description was wrong.There are according to Danish law only two exceptions. The first is this: if a carrier isnot able himself to check the accuracy of the description then he has the right to makea remark on the bill of lading drawing the attention of the purchaser of the bill oflading to the fact that there is something wrong, and then of course he is free fromliability. And, secondly, he will probably be exonerated from any liability, even if he hasnot put such a remark on the bill of lading, if it is quite obvious to the purchaser of thebill of lading that it was quite impossible for him to check the accuracy of thedescription, and he could not know anything about it, that he could not control it forinstance on account of the manner in which it was packed. Those are the only twoexceptions according to Danish laws. Now this difference of systems entails someconsequences. You say in Article 3(3): “Provided that no carrier, master or agent of thecarrier shall be bound to issue a bill of lading showing any description mark, number,quantity or weight which he has reasonable ground for suspecting to not accuratelyrepresent the goods actually received”. I think that in Denmark we should say that ifit is manifest to the carrier that the description is not all right, is false, it is not only hisright, but his duty to put a remark on the [329] bill of lading in order not to deceivethe purchaser of the bill. The man who is purchasing the bill of lading should trust tothe description, trust to what is stated in the bill of lading, and therefore we say that itwould be the duty of the carrier to make a remark about the description, when he hasreasonable ground for believing, or it is quite manifest to him, that the description isnot all right. Of course then on the other part the shipper is obliged not to refuse thebill of lading in any manner. I admit that from a practical point of view there mightperhaps not be such a very great difference between those two systems - I allow myselfto call them the British system and the Scandinavian system - but you understand that