Carriage of Goods by Sea

Download .pdf, .docx, .epub, .txt
Did you like this example?

Part A: Butcher Ltd & KRY Ltd The contract of affreightment is evidenced by the bill of lading where, as here, the goods to be carried only form part of the total cargo. The liability of the carrier under the bill of lading is now subject to a combination of the rules introduced by the Maritime Law Committee of the International Law Association held in the Hague in 1921 as revised by the Brussels Protocol of 1968, known collectively as the ’Hague/Visby Rules’. It is agreed here that the bill of lading is subject to English law which passed legislation (the Carriage of Goods by Sea Act 1971) to implement these rules. It is also necessary to have regard to the Carriage of Goods by Sea Act 1992 which governs all contracts of carriage entered into after 16 September 1992. The object of the Hague/Visby Rules is to establish the minimum obligations of the carrier and to define the maximum immunities to which he is entitled and the extent to which he is able to limit his liability. Article III, rule 2 provides: “Subject to the provisions of Article IV, the carrier shall properly and carefully load, handle, stow, carry, keep, care for and discharge the goods delivered”. So far as the cobras in Container A are concerned, these are expressly excluded by Art.1(c): “Goods” includes goods, wares, merchandise, and articles of every kind whatsoever except live animals and cargo which by the contract of carriage is stated as being carried on deck and is so carried”. In any event, Art.IV, rule 2 provides the “catalogue of exceptions” which are available to the carrier under the Rules. These include: “Neither the carrier or the ship shall be responsible for loss or damage arising or resulting from – a) Act, neglect, or default of the master, mariner, pilot or the servants of the carrier in the navigation or in the management of the ship.” While there is little difficulty in interpreting “faults in navigation”, the concept of “management of the ship” is more problematic. The uncertainty arises because of the distinction between the duty to take care of the ship and a duty toward the safety of the cargo which in reality can frequently overlap. The applicable test was propounded by Greer LJ[1]: If the cause of the damage is solely, or even primarily, a neglect to take reasonable care of the cargo, the ship is liable, but if the cause of the damage is a neglect to take reasonable care of the ship, or some part of it, as distinct from the cargo, the ship is relieved from liability; for if the negligence is not negligence towards the ship, but only negligent failure to use the apparatus of the ship for the protection of the cargo, the ship is not so relieved.” Thus, in Gosse Millerd, a cargo of tinplate was damaged by a failure to secure tarpaulins. The House of Lords held that since the purpose of the tarpaulins was to protect the cargo,

Do you want to see the Full Version?

View full version

Having doubts about how to write your paper correctly?

Our editors will help you fix any mistakes and get an A+!

Get started
Leave your email and we will send a sample to you.
Thank you!

We will send an essay sample to you in 24 Hours. If you need help faster you can always use our custom writing service.

Get help with my paper
Sorry, but copying text is forbidden on this website. You can leave an email and we will send it to you.