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

PART II - HAGUE RULES 431Article 4 (3) - Responsibility of the shippercauses. In the case of the receiver of cargo you strike it out and you give him a generalcause. I think that is not the way [480] to treat it. I think the fair and proper way isto give equal treatment to both sides on this matter. If you are going to give theshipowner the particular exceptions, I think you ought to give exceptions to the shipper.I understand - Sir Stephen will correct me - that this matter was discussed and theclause was inserted at the direct request of the shippers involved, because they thoughtit was very important that they should have equal protection with the shipowner if theshipowner claims exemptions. One of the greatest objections that the traders of thecountry have made, is to the very wide range of exemptions and we thought it was onlyfair that the traders should have equal exemptions, and in my opinion, I may bewrong, of course, the clause as worded will not protect the receiver to the same extentas the shipowner is protected.The Chairman: My own impression about it is that the words framed here havebeen designed to give the shipper the largest protection that could be devised for him.I may be wrong about it, but I must take the judgment of the Conference upon the subject.Is it the sense of the Conference that the words which have been read be insertedin the clause? (Agreed).Text adopted by the Conference(CMI Bulletin No. 65 - Gothenborg Conference)[381]3. THE SHIPPER SHALL NOT BE RESPONSIBLE FOR LOSS OR DAMAGE SUSTAINED BYTHE CARRIER OR THE SHIP ARISING OR RESULTING FROM ANY CAUSES WITHOUT THE ACT,FAULT OR NEGLECT OF THE SHIPPER, HIS AGENTS OR HIS SERVANTS.Conférence Diplomatique -Octobre 1923Séances de la Sous-CommissionTroisième Séance Plénière -7 Octobre 1923[63]M. Bagge propose la suppression duparagraphe 3 à l’article 4 qui lui paraîtpeu clair; il semble n’être que la reproductiond’une règle générale suivant laquellele chargeur n’est pas responsabledes pertes ou dommages causés par samarchandise s’il n’y a pas faute de sa partou de ses agents.Sir Leslie Scott croit, en effet, quecette clause n’est qu’une simple constatationd’une règle générale insérée à la demandedes chargeurs.M. Bagge conclut que, dans la loi nationale,cette stipulation pourra être omise.Diplomatic Conference -October 1923Meetings of the Sous-CommissionThird Plenary Session -7 October 1923[63]Mr. Bagge proposed the deletion ofarticle 4(3), which seemed to him to berather unclear. It appeared to be only areproduction of a general rule underwhich the shipper was not liable for lossor damage caused by his goods if therewas no fault on his part or that of hisagents.Sir Leslie Scott believed, in effect,that this clause was only a simple statementof a general rule inserted at the requestof the shippers.Mr. Bagge concluded that in nationallaw this stipulation could be omitted.