21-594: The Hague Rules of 1924 (formally the "International Convention for the Unification of Certain Rules of Law relating to Bills of Lading, and Protocol of Signature") is an international convention to impose minimum standards upon commercial carriers of goods by sea. Previously, only the common law provided protection to cargo-owners; but the Hague Rules should not be seen as a "consumers' charter" for shippers because
42-477: A draft bill which Parliament adopted in full without amendment. The statute makes provision for Bills of Lading and other documents of carriage, as follows: A bill of lading serves three main functions: Although the term "bill of lading" is well known and well understood, it may become obsolete. Articles 1:15 and 1:16 of the Rotterdam Rules create the new term "transport document"; but (assuming
63-415: A reasonable standard of professionalism and care; and Article IV allows the carrier a wide range of situations exempting them from liability on a cargo claim. These exemptions include destruction or damage to the cargo caused by: fire , perils of the sea, Act of God , and act of war. A controversial provision exempts the carrier from liability for "neglect or default of the master ... in the navigation or in
84-517: Is a set of international rules for the international carriage of goods by sea . They are a slightly updated version of the original Hague Rules which were drafted in Brussels in 1924. The premise of the Hague–Visby Rules (and of the earlier English common law from which the Rules are drawn) was that a carrier typically has far greater bargaining power than the shipper, and that to protect
105-489: The U.N. established a fairer and more modern set of rules, the Hamburg Rules (effective 1992). Also a more radical and extensive set of rules is the Rotterdam Rules , but as of August 2020, only 5 states have ratified these rules, so they are not yet in force. This article related to international law is a stub . You can help Misplaced Pages by expanding it . Hague-Visby Rules The Hague–Visby Rules
126-514: The container revolution of the 1950s. Also, UNCTAD felt that they had actually diluted the protection to shippers once provided by English common law, and proposed instead the more modern Hamburg Rules of 1978, which were embraced by many developing countries, but largely ignored by ship-operating nations. The modern Rotterdam Rules , with some 96 articles, have far more scope and cover multi-modal transport but remain far from general implementation. A list of ratifications and denouncements of
147-660: The "International Convention for the Unification of Certain Rules of Law relating to Bills of Lading". After being amended by the Brussels Amendments (officially the "Protocol to Amend the International Convention for the Unification of Certain Rules of Law Relating to Bills of Lading") in 1968, the Rules became known colloquially as the Hague–Visby Rules. A final amendment was made in the SDR Protocol in 1979. Many countries declined to adopt
168-420: The 1924 Convention actually favoured carriers and reduced their obligations to shippers. The Hague Rules represented the first attempt by the international community to find a workable and uniform way to address the problem of shipowners regularly excluding themselves from all liability for loss or damage to cargo. The objective of the Hague Rules was to establish a minimum mandatory liability of carriers. Under
189-540: The Hague Rules the shipper bears the cost of lost/damaged goods if they cannot prove that the vessel was unseaworthy, improperly manned or unable to safely transport and preserve the cargo, i.e. the carrier can avoid liability for risks resulting from human errors provided they exercise due diligence and their vessel is properly manned and seaworthy. These provisions have frequently been the subject of discussion between shipowners and cargo interests on whether they provide an appropriate balance in liability. The Hague Rules form
210-456: The Hague–Visby Rules and stayed with the 1924 Hague Rules. Some other countries which upgraded to Hague-Visby subsequently failed to adopt the 1979 SDR protocol. The Hague–Visby Rules were incorporated into English law by the Carriage of Goods by Sea Act 1971 ; and English lawyers should note the provisions of the statute as well as the text of the rules. For instance, although Article I(c) of
231-591: The Rules come into force) it remains to be seen whether shippers, carriers and "maritime performing parties" (another new Rotterdam Rules coinage) will abandon the long-established and familiar term, "bill of lading". The Carriage of Goods by Sea Act 1971 incorporates the Hague-Visby Rules into English Law. These rules require (where the Article X invokes the Rules) that, on demand, the carrier must provide
SECTION 10
#1732771877656252-407: The Rules exempts live animals and deck cargo, section 1(7) restores those items into the category of "goods". Also, although Article III(4) declares a bill of lading to be a mere "prima facie evidence of the receipt by the carrier of the goods", the Carriage of Goods by Sea Act 1992 section 4 upgrades a bill of lading to be "conclusive evidence of receipt". Under Article X, the Rules apply if ("a)
273-410: The basis of national legislation in almost all of the world's major trading nations, and cover nearly all the present international shipping. The Hague Rules have been updated by two protocols, but neither addressed the basic liability provisions, which remain unchanged. The Hague Rules were slightly amended (beginning in 1931, and further in 1977 and 1982) to become the Hague-Visby Rules . In addition,
294-496: The bill of lading is issued in a contracting State, or (b) the carriage is from a port in a contracting State, or (c) the contract (of carriage) provides that(the) Rules ... are to govern the contract". If the Rules apply, the entire text of Rules is incorporated into the contract of carriage, and any attempt to exclude the Rules is void under Article III (8). Under the Rules, the carrier's main duties are to "properly and carefully load, handle, stow, carry, keep, care for, and discharge
315-514: The goods carried" and to "exercise due diligence to ... make the ship seaworthy" and to "... properly man, equip and supply the ship". It is implicit (from the common law) that the carrier must not deviate from the agreed route nor from the usual route; but Article IV(4) provides that "any deviation in saving or attempting to save life or property at sea or any reasonable deviation shall not be deemed to be an infringement or breach of these Rules". The carrier's duties are not "strict", but require only
336-518: The goods ready for shipment as agreed; (q.v."notice of readiness to load" ). None of these shippers' obligations are enforceable under the Rules; instead they would give rise to a normal action in contract. With only 10 articles, the rules have the virtue of brevity, but they have several faults. When, after 44 years of experience, the 1924 rules were updated with a single minor amendment, they still covered only carriage wholly by sea (thereby ignoring multi-modal transport ), and they barely acknowledged
357-505: The interests of the shipper/cargo-owner, the law should impose some minimum affreightment obligations upon the carrier. However, the Hague and Hague–Visby Rules were hardly a charter of new protections for cargo-owners; the English common law prior to 1924 provided more protection for cargo-owners, and imposed more liabilities upon "common carriers". The official title of the Hague Rules
378-461: The management of the ship". This provision is considered unfair to the shipper; and both the later Hamburg Rules (which require contracting states to denounce the Hague–Visby Rules) and Rotterdam Rules (which are not yet in force) refuse exemption for negligent navigation and management. Also, whereas the Hague–Visby Rules require a ship to be seaworthy only "before and at the beginning" of
399-543: The problem: in Brandt v Liverpool (1924) the concept of implied contracts was developed, although the courts proved reluctant to use this concept. Nevertheless, there were difficulties relating to passing of property and passing of risk. The Law Commission and the Scottish Law Commission addressed the issue in a report, "Rights of Suit in respect of Carriage of Goods by Sea". The Report contained
420-551: The three conventions is shown below: Carriage of Goods by Sea Act 1992 The Carriage of Goods By Sea Act 1992 (c. 50) is a UK statute regarding bills for the lading of goods onto ships. It repealed the Bills of Lading Act 1855 ( 18 & 19 Vict. c. 111) and made new provisions. The Bills of Lading Act 1855 ( 18 & 19 Vict. c. 111) was commendably brief and proved useful, but as time went by certain defects became apparent. The English courts devised some ways round
441-571: The voyage, under the Rotterdam Rules the carrier will have to keep the ship seaworthy throughout the voyage (although this new duty will be to a reasonable standard that is subject to the circumstances of being at sea). By contrast, the shipper has fewer obligations (mostly implicit), namely: (i) to pay freight; (ii) to pack the goods sufficiently for the journey; (iii) to describe the goods honestly and accurately; (iv) not to ship dangerous cargoes (unless agreed by both parties); and (v) to have
SECTION 20
#1732771877656#655344