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

448 COMITE MARITIME INTERNATIONALThe Travaux Préparatoires of the Hague and Hague-Visby RulesMr. Dor: In a pre-war bill of lading.Sir Norman Hill: The old figure used to be £20 in an English bill of lading. In theUnited States the figure commonly used pre-war was 100 dollars. That is not in theAct; that was put into the bills and accepted by the United States Courts as not repugnantto the Act. The Canadian Act has 100 dollars.Mr. Dor: In the pre-war bills of lading it was £100.Sir Norman Hill: Well, very few.Mr. Dor: You will find in that paper which I read in 1912, that was before the war,I quoted that sum of £100, which was taken from the English bills of lading.Sir Norman Hill: The amount is important. And then as to the adjustment as betweenweight, measurement and package I think something like that will have to be inserted.I think the principle that has been adopted with us so far has been the assumptionthat the average package will represent 10 cwt. in weight, or 20 cubic feet.That has been taken as the average. Therefore, you see, if you start with 100 the cubicfoot would be five, and the cwt. would be ten. That would be the proportion that wehave been in the habit of using. There is nothing sacred about that, and we are absolutelywith Mr. Dor that our labours are all in vain unless we are carrying allshipowners with us.Mr. Dor: If you make it so that you will be liable for less than £20, or £100, perpackage, all your labours are in vain. If your rule is framed in such a way that when thepackage is light, or small, the shipowner will be responsible for less than £20 or £100per package, then the whole thing is no good.Sir Norman Hill: Make it £20 per package; start with that.Mr. Dor: I propose £100.Mr. Rudolf: I agree with Mr. Dor that this is really one of the [162] most vital clauses,and one which perhaps presents more difficulty than almost any in these proposedrules.The Chairman: Might I interrupt you a moment? I have been asked to inform themeeting that a meeting on the subject of deck cargoes which had been called at thePalace Hotel at half-past four is proposed to be held here after we have concluded tosay’ssitting.Mr. Rudolf: Just to resume. When I gave evidence before the Imperial ShippingCommittee I was examined very closely on this, and it was one of the most difficultpoints I had to deal with; but I think it ought to be made quite clear at this juncturethat the meeting have it in mind that, when we as cargo owners suggest some maximumlimit, that does not mean to say that if the package is lost that is the value theshipowner will pay. It only means to say, up to that value, if it be larger. If the packageis of lesser value, that lesser value is the amount he has to pay. Under the Harter Actclauses were inserted: “Not accountable for more than such a value”. Our Courts interpretedthat clause as contravening the principles of the Harter Act. The shipownersthen, who, as Mr. Dor has said, carefully watch these things, put in a clause sayingthat as between the parties the value in case of loss shall be agreed as being so much.That the Courts held as not being any infringement of the Harter Act. That gives thempower then to put in the bill of lading, if they like, £1 or 1s. as being the value of thepackage, and that is the thing which we as cargo owners are determined, if possible, toget over. Of course my instructions are that we should suggest that the actual value perpackage should be £200. That may sound rather a large figure, but I do think it is desirable,subject to dealing in a reasonable and fair way with the shipowners, that weshould as far as possible get as many cases to come within the maximum liability andavoid having to make any more exceptional cases, that is, cases in which the value hasto be specially declared, than necessary. £200 may seem today a high figure, but thereis no doubt about it, that values are steadily trending downwards, and that as time goes