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

352 COMITE MARITIME INTERNATIONALThe Travaux Préparatoires of the Hague and Hague-Visby RulesText adopted by the Conference[379]8. Any clause, covenant or agreement in a contract of carriage relieving the carrier orthe ship from liability for loss or damage to or in connection with goods arising from negligence,fault or failure in the duties and obligations provided in this Article OR LESSEN-ING SUCH LIABILITY OTHERWISE THAN AS PROVIDED IN THESE RULES shall be null and voidand of no effect.CMI 1922 London ConferenceText submitted to the Conference(CMI Bulletin No. 65 - Gothenborg Conference)[366]8. Any clause, covenant or agreement in a contract of carriage relieving the carrier orthe ship from liability for loss or damage to or in connection with goods arising from negligence,fault or failure in the duties and obligations provided in this Article or lesseningsuch liability otherwise than as provided in these Rules shall be null and void and of noeffect.Afternoon sitting of 11 October 1922[456]Sir Norman Hill (Rapporteur of the Sub-Committee): Gentlemen, the next pointwe dealt with arises under the same Article section 8. That is at the bottom of page 4.It is the clause which prohibits the carrier from inserting any clause relieving him fromliability imposed by the Rules. A question was raised as to whether, what is commonlyknown as a “benefit of insurance” clause was such a clause. The clause in questionas you know provides that the shipowner having met his liability is entitled to take overany insurance the cargo owner may have effected on his cargo, and the question iswhether that clause would be a clause relieving the shipowner from liability within themeaning of the Rule. We are all quite clear that we mean to prohibit such a clause, andit is therefore proposed to introduce words to the following effect: “A ‘benefit of insurance’or similar clause shall be deemed to be a clause relieving [457] the carrier fromliability”. That is to say that that clause will be a prohibited clause.Mr. A. P. Möller: Will that be a prohibited clause? I did not understand that.Sir Norman Hill: That is right, Mr. Möller.The Chairman: I think on the whole that it would be better that members shouldreserve observations. It is not convenient to have a preliminary statement interruptedwith discussion. Members will make a note of the reservations they desire to make.[474]The Chairman: Article 3, clause 8. It is proposed that this paragraph shall be addedat the end of the clause: “A ‘benefit of insurance’ or similar clause shall be deemed tobe a clause relieving the carrier from the liability”. Is that agreed?