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

PART II - HAGUE RULES 275Article 3 (6) - Notice of loss or damagejust the following words, it may be that they will want to adjust those words, and I donot think the Sub-Committee wanted to tie their hands.Dr. Eric Jackson: It is, question for the Federation, for whom I act, as to how far,having got these amendments with difficulty out of the shipowners, they can leave itto somebody, upon which they will not be represented, to alter those amendments.The Chairman: I think this is debate. We only want to know at present what theviews of the Committee are.[466]Mr. Möller: I would like to say as regards this question of “into the custody” thatI understood the same as Sir Norman Hill has described it, that there was some doubtin our minds as regards the proper phrasing of it.The Chairman: Which is that?Mr. Möller: That is clause 6 of Article 3 “into the custody of the person entitled todelivery thereof”. I believe I was the person who raised the point and I said that Ithought that my objection would be met by striking out the words that Mr. Jacksonhas told you, namely “under the contract of carriage”, but I distinctly did not understandthat we would leave these words “into the custody of the person entitled to deliverythereof”, and only submit the further words to the Diplomatic Conference. Myunderstanding was just as Sir Norman Hill has described it, that we would leave theentire matter to the decision of the Diplomatic Conference.Mr. Louis Franck: I do not think there was really, as to the root of the thing, anydissenting view. The case which was put before us was the following one. You see herethat this Rule will not apply until the time when the goods get into the custody of theperson entitled [467] to the delivery thereof under the contract of carriage. In 99 casesout of 100, there is not the slightest difficulty about that; the person entitled to receivethe goods under the contract of carriage is the consignee or the holder of the billof lading or his agent. But there may be cases where the goods are left over for severalmonths, let us say in a bonded warehouse of the State or with Customs, or on thequay even, and the question is whether you are going to construe a case of that sort ascoming under these rules, or whether you are going to keep the shipowner always liableeven if the goods have gone practically out of his possession or out of his control.Then the suggestion of Mr. Möller was that this difficulty would be met if the words“under the contract of carriage” were struck out, and then we decided that, withoutany prejudice to the principle, we would leave this narrow question of construction, ofdrafting, to the Diplomatic Conference. The idea is very clear. If it is a matter of responsibility,the responsibility which comes under this Convention will cease for theship under the ship’s tackle, but as far as the delivery of the goods is concerned, andthe application of this clause saying that if there is no notice and the goods are takenaway without notice, it will be prima facie evidence that all was right with that delivery,surely the shipowner must make a real delivery, but what that delivery is to be it willbe for the law of the land, the law of the port of destination to say. There is the end ofit. So I think that really we can take notice of the fact, that the gentleman who raisedobjection on the matter, would be satisfied if the words “under the contract of carriage”were left out, and as [468] for revising this drafting we can leave it to the DiplomaticConference.The Chairman: With that exception, is the Conference ready to proceed from thatpoint? Is that agreed? (Agreed).[472]The Chairman: Then Article 3(6). Is it agreed with regard to the first two lines, that