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

PART II - HAGUE RULES 469Article 4 (5) - Limits of liabilityComité Central des Armateurs de France: c’est notamment celui qui vise la limitationde la responsabilité à £100 par colis ou par unité. Lors de la Conférence de la Haye,par la bouche de M. de Rousiers, nous avons demandé que la limite ne fût pas unesomme fixe, mais un multiple du fret. La suggestion n’a pas été adoptée; néanmoins,elle avait recueilli les suffrages de beaucoup de membres. C’est pourquoi je demandeque la Commission amende le projet sous ce rapport de façon plus équitable et pratique.[404]Mr. Noboru Ohtani (Japan): Mr. Chairman. What I am going to say is principallyon behalf of the Japanese Shipowners Association. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .When the Rules were before the International Conference of Shipowners in Londonlast December, at which I had the pleasure of being present, I made certain reservationsin respect of the minimum amount of the shipowners’ liability, which is fixedat £100. From various gentlemen here I understand that this was a very knotty problemat The Hague. The [405] Japanese shipowners are still of the opinion that thisamount is too high. It is because the cargoes moving in the Eastern ports are not likethose shipped from European or American ports. They are usually of a rough charactersuch as agricultural products, or marine products, and in most cases, the value perunit does not come up so high as £100.Afternoon sitting of 11 October 1922Sir Norman Hill (Rapporteur of the Sub-Committee):. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[453]Those seem to us to be points and also the point with regard to the maximum liabilityof £100 with which we think the Diplomatic Conference can be trusted to deal.Now, Sir, it is quite clear that there are members of that Sub-Committee who takevery clear and very firm views indeed that the £100 is a business bargain, and that itmust stand. There are other members of the Sub-Committee who were not at ourmeeting at the Hague, who take equally clear and positive views that that is too much.We could not bring back from the Sub-Committee any recommendation. You haveour suggestion that we should leave it to the Diplomatic Conference. It will be for you,Sir, to say whether or not you think that is a wise recommendation, that we shouldleave the three points to them: the time from which the notice is to run, the periodwithin which the suit is to be brought, and the amount.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[459]Then, Sir, there is the next point, and if I am not conveying the views of the Sub-Committee - I did my best to ascertain them - I shall regret it very much with regardto my fellow members and still more to the Conference. As I understand it our recommendationis that we leave to the Diplomatic Conference to settle, we acceptingtheir decision, first, the time from which the notice of loss or damage is to run - thatdepends upon what is to be treated as delivery, as the handing over from the ship. Secondlythe time within which suit is to be started or claim barred, and thirdly, as I understandit - I am afraid that some members of the Sub-Committee think that my understandingis at fault - the limit of the £100. It is not that we want the Diplomatic Conferenceto start all over again and decide out of its innate wisdom the right solution onall those points. We thought that we had got it up to the point at which we could not