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

472 COMITE MARITIME INTERNATIONALThe Travaux Préparatoires of the Hague and Hague-Visby Rulesmercial values as between commercial men. (Hear, hear). And I say that we should bevery badly advised, I think, if we do not agree to allow that stipulation to remain in theRules as amended, and as they are before us to-day, and to eliminate entirely any questionof referring such a point to the Diplomatic Conference. (Hear, hear).Mr. E: B. Tredwen: I should like to speak on this subject, because in the Australiantrade, which I particularly represent, the maximum limit, and it is a maximum limit nota minimum limit, as Mr. Rudolf stated, is £200. In all these matters it is a question ofcompromise. We were not desirous of giving up the £200 which we can go up to underthe previously existing bills of lading, but in order that we might carry out theagreements arrived at at The Hague we, as a trade, were willing to give up that andcome to £100. But I think it will be a great mistake to go below that, and, particularlyas £100 was agreed to at The Hague, I think we should carry out loyally the arrangementsmade at The Hague, and vary those Rules as little as possible. (Hear, hear).Therefore I think it will be very undesirable to make any alteration in this, especiallyas in the trade I particularly represent it is half the amount that we previously were getting.(Applause).M. Laurent Toutain: I have just a word to say. It is not quite clear to me if the provisionin these Rules means that the £100 is the maximum responsibility or [485] ifthere is to be admitted a proportion of it for the real value of the thing, or if theshipowner is always responsible up to the amount of £100. There are differences of decisionon this question in the Courts.The Chairman: I will ask Mr. Franck to reply.Mr. Louis Franck: My Lords and Gentlemen. The reply is that this figure of £100is a maximum limit and in all cases, and I think we ought to maintain it. It does not reallymatter very much: the main thing is that there is limit, and this is a very reasonableone, and I should say, a very generous one, and we ought not to ask more.Mr. Leopold Dor: I only want to ask Mr. Franck whether he does not really meana minimum limit?Mr. Louis Franck: No.Mr. Leopold Dor: That is rather important.Mr. Louis Franck: It is a maximum.Mr. Leopold Dor: Do you mean that the £100 is the maximum, because I understandyou to want to mean that the £100 is the minimum limit of responsibility, andthat the shipowner cannot limit his liability for any package to less than £100.Mr. Louis Franck: Yes.Mr. Leopold Dor: I call that a minimum limit, not a maximum.[486]Mr. Louis Franck: Oh, well.The Chairman: The question which I submitted was whether the Conference desiresto make any representation to the Diplomatic Conference upon the matter raisedby Article IV, Rule 5. Does any member offer any further observations upon that?Me. J. S. McConechy: I only wanted to say that it is not a question for the DiplomaticConference, and I quite agree with all that Mr. Rudolf has said. It is no use mywasting time by going over the ground again.The Chairman: Mr McConechy, as the members know, speaks for the Manchesterinterests in particular. Now I put the question: Is it the desire of the Conference thatany representation should be made to the Diplomatic Conference upon the questioninvolved in Article 4(5)? (No). Then I take it that it is not the opinion of the Conferencethat any such representation should be made. That is agreed? (Agreed).