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

538 COMITE MARITIME INTERNATIONALThe Travaux Préparatoires of the Hague and Hague-Visby Rules[45]Troisième remarque, il convientd’établir sur ce sujet un équilibre aussijudicieux que possible entre les différentsintérêts qui se trouvent concernésen l’espèce. Ceci nous amène à nous prononceren faveur d’un système souple.Nous pensons que cette souplesse setrouvera consacrée par l’adoption d’unsystème mixte, ce qui permettrait de retenirplusieurs systèmes, à savoir celui ducolis et de l’élément de chargement, celuidu poids calculé au kilo, ainsi qu’un systèmed’unité de volume, mentionné auconnaissement.Ces systèmes seraient évidemmentouverts au choix du réclamant.Enfin, ces systèmes ne fonctionneraientque sous réserve qu’il n’y ait pas eupréalablement valeur déclarée.Voilà, en termes très généraux, commentla délégation française conçoit lesystème qu’elle souhaiterait voir adopterpar la Conférence. Je vous remercie.M. le Président. La parole est à la délégationdes Pays-Bas.[45]Thirdly, we should establish on thissubject, as best as we can, a judiciousequilibrium between the interests involvedin this matter. This leads us to optfor a flexible system. We think that thisflexibility will be established by theadoption of a mixed system, whichwould enable us to keep several systems,namely that of the package and the shippingunit, that of the weight per kilogram,as well as the concept of unit ofvolume specified in the bill of lading.These systems would, of course, beavailable at the choice of the claimant.Lastly, these systems would onlywork if no value has been declared beforehand.This is, in general terms, how theFrench delegation perceives the systemthat it wishes to see adopted by the conference.Thank you.The Chairman. The Dutch delegationhas the floor.Mr. A. Loeff (Netherlands). Mr. Chairman, Ladies and Gentlemen, there is onegeneral observation I would like to make on behalf of the Netherlands delegation.There is a big difference between the figures of limitation per kilo proposed, amongother by the Netherlands delegation and by the Scandinavian delegation.In this respect I would like to observe that it is easily forgotten that there is a generalrule in the Hague Rules providing for unlimited liability of the carrier. It is underthe proviso that the shipper declares what the value is of his goods. In that case, thecarrier has unlimited liability for the value, and that is why, if the value has been declared,the carrier can have special care for the goods.If there is no declaration of the value it is general cargo and therefore the Netherlandsdelegation has thought it advisable not to raise the limitation too much per kilobecause if you multiply that amount by the total weight of the cargo you come to enormousamounts. For the value of the cargo, I repeat that a simple declaration of the valuewill do for unlimited liability which is not so in the air traffic nor in road traffic.Mr. H. J. Darling (Canada). Mr. Chairman, I would like to state very briefly a fewobservations we have in coming to this Conference.We regard the purpose of the Conference as dictated by three circumstances: firstof all, the changes in the price level since 1924. [46] In Canada, the wholesale pricelevel has approximately doubled during that period. Secondly, to revert to an internationalmonetary standard, the gold franc, as in other conventions. Thirdly, to take noteof the larger packages now moving in international trade, notably containers.These changes all imply the need for an upward adjustment of the limit of liabilityand each proposal should be examined as to the extent to which it meets this criterion.The Canadian delegation, therefore, is interested in the following objectives: To