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

268 COMITE MARITIME INTERNATIONALThe Travaux Préparatoires of the Hague and Hague-Visby Rulesmoved. It is a very common clause. Exception has been taken to that as being too onerouson the cargo owners, and other varieties of clauses have been used: some that theclaim must be made within ten days after removal I [109] have seen; I have seen twentydays after removal, and I have seen ninety days after removal. That seems a newform. Then there is another form of clause which is very commonly used, providingthat the ship is relieved unless suit is started within a fixed period. I have seen threemonths; I have seen six months; I have seen nine months; twelve months. I think eighteenmonths is the longest time. Now, in the clauses that we have passed we are puttinga very heavy responsibility indeed upon the shipowner. We all know in the ordinarycourse of business he will not verify, and he has not the opportunity of verifying, thefacts that are given to him by the owners of the goods, the shippers. You may blamehim for it, but it will not be done; we all know that it will not be done; and we all know,if it were done, the cost of carriage would be very substantially increased; and if thecost of carriage is substantially increased, ultimately freight will be increased, subjectto the give and take of the market. You are making the acceptance of those statementsprima facie evidence against the shipowner. What we propose is that if the receiver ofthe cargo removes the goods without notifying a claim, the removal shall be prima facieevidence against the receiver of the cargo that he has got the same cargo that wasgiven to the shipowner. It does not bar a claim. It merely, as the Chairman has said,provides that the person who will have to account for the shortage, or who will haveto prove the shortage if a claim arises, will be the receiver of the parcels if he clearsthem from the quay without notifying the claim. That, I think, is a perfectly fair andjust provision as between the parties. I think it is handing out the same measure of justiceto the receiver of the cargo as we have handed out to the shipowner. In fact I thinkyou are letting off the receiver of cargo far more lightly than you are the shipowner.The receiver of cargo will have many more opportunities of ascertaining that the goodshanded over to him are in accordance with the particulars which the shipper of the cargohas given him. The words we propose to insert are these: “Unless written notice ofa claim for loss or damage and the general nature of such claim be given in writing tothe carrier or his agent at the port of discharge before the removal of the goods, suchremoval shall be prima facie evidence of the delivery by the carrier of the goods describedin the bill of lading, and in any event the carrier and the ship shall be dischargedfrom all liability in respect of loss [110] or damage unless suit is brought withintwelve months after the delivery of the goods”.The Chairman: The question is that that proposed new clause be now considered.Does the Committee agree that it be considered? (Agreed).Mr. Paine has given notice of an amendment to that proposed new clause, whichdeals with matters Sir Norman Hill has been discussing.Mr. Paine: I do not propose to move that amendment. I do not wish to stand in Mr.McConechy’s way if he wishes to move it. I am perfectly satisfied with Sir NormanHill’s explanation.The Chairman: Mr. McConechy, do you desire to move that amendment?Mr. McConechy: I propose - this is going far beyond what Sir Norman Hill said -that we take out the word “before” and add in “within fifteen days after the removal”.Sir Norman Hill: No.The Chairman: I call upon Mr. Dor.Mr. Howard Robinson: I should like to support that, Mr. Chairman and Gentlemen.The Chairman: I called upon Mr. Dor, Mr. Robinson.Mr. Dor: It may interest the Committee to know the provisions of the French lawin that respect. According to Article 435 of the French Code, written notice must begiven within twenty-four hours from the removal of the goods, and not only that writ-