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

PART II - HAGUE RULES 95Article 1(b) - The definition of “Contract of carriage”ping and that moreover they were not really called for tramp shipping. It must be rememberedthat the call for reform and the reason that these Rules have been broughtinto being at all, as far as I understand it, has been owing to the position as regards linerbills of lading. Everyone knows the liner bill of lading is full of clauses in small printthat few people have the good eyes to read and no one has time to read. Merchantscould justly say that there was no freedom of contract in liner bills of lading, and so faras I understand it the whole agitation for reform arose through that circumstance.Now as regards tramp shipping the position has always been and is to day quite [333]different. Tramp shipping is done on a basis of free contract. The bill of lading is notthe primary document; the primary document is the charter party, and the charter partyis gone through by both parties and signed by both parties. It is generally signed bythe merchants and signed over by a representative of the shipowner, at any rate he actsfor the owner and the owner must abide by what he does. Therefore the cargo interestsare as regards tramp shipping in a much better position to protect their interests,and as there are so many trades in the world it is natural that there will be differentcharter parties, and it is possible for both parties, and convenient for both parties tobe able to do so, to put such special conditions into any given charter party that anygiven special trade may demand. Therefore I do not really see any need, and as far asmy knowledge goes, I never heard of any call, for reform of the present condition ofthings as regards tramp shipping. I would suggest that a clause should be introducedinto these Rules somewhat like this: “Where the carriage is governed by a charter partysigned by both parties or by representatives of both parties the relations betweencarrier, shipper and receivers may be regulated by such charter party and the presentRules shall not apply to such instances”. It seems to me that it would be a practicalthing to introduce a Rule like that, and then in time you could gain experience, and ifit turned out in a few years that a modification of that kind was not possible and didnot meet with the reasonable desires of the parties concerned it could be amended, butit seems to me that it is always [334] very dangerous to go beyond what is necessaryand to go the whole hog at once, and it is much better to leave well enough alone.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[340]Mr. Möller: I have already occupied your time rather long and I have some furtherobjections, but I do not think that I should enter into them now. I would simply say tofinish up, that tramp owners are not inimical to the Rules; they are not inimical to theadoption of a uniform standard which shall govern these things, but the tramp shippingis of a more varied description than liner shipping, and new trades constantlycrop up, and an owner wants to be careful not to draw lines too close, because theremay always be new trades that require special circumstances, and we also desire suchsimple alterations in the Rules as are important for tramp owners, and which to ourview cannot be objectionable to the interests of merchants. (Applause).[345]Sir Norman Hill: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .There is one great big point and that is: should or should not tramps come underthe Code. That is a great big point and as you answer that you settle a great many [346]questions. May I point out that there is nothing in the Rules which affects in any shapeor form the operation of a ship under a charter party. Any cargo owner can charter anyship on any terms that he can agree with the shipowner. He is absolutely a free manfrom first to last and all the time. But, if, under that charter party, bills of lading are issued,then the bills of lading come under the Code, not the charter party. Is that right