|
[53] Samir Mankabady “Comments on the Hamburg Rules” in Samir Mankabady(ed) The Hamburg Rules on the Carriage of Goods by Sea (A.W. Sijthoff, Leyden, 2002) 27, 33. The judgement of this case was one of the reasons of revision of the Hague Rule.
[54] See Francis Trindade The Law of Torts in Australia (2ed, Oxford University Press, 2001) 727.
[55] Gabriel Moens and Peter Gillies International Trade and Business: Law, Policy and Ethics (Cavendish Publishing Pty Limited, Syney, 2001) 188.
[56] See Brian Makins “Sea Carriage of Goods Liability which Route for Australia” (Fourteenth International Trade Law Conference, Canberra, 16 October 1987) 13.
[57] see also Samuel Robert Mandelbaum “International Ocean Shipping and Risk Allocation for Cargo Loss, Damage and Delay: A U.S. Approach to COGSA, Hague-Visby, Hamburg and the Multimodal Rules” 5 J. Transnat''l L & Pol''y 1.
[58] E.R. Hardy Ivamy Payne & Ivamy’s Carriage of Goods by Sea (11ed, Butterworths, London, 2002) 82-83.
[59] See M.J.Shah “The Revision of the Hague Rules on Bills of Lading within the UN System - Key Issues” in Samir Mankabady(ed) The Hamburg Rules on the Carriage of Goods by Sea (A.W. Sijthoff, Leyden, 2002) 1, 3.
[60] The Hague Rules art 3 (8).
[61] The Hague Rules art 4.
[62] There are mainly two reasons. One is the cargo owner is as familiar with the Hague Rules as the carrier; the other is he doesn’t have bargaining power at all.
[63] The Hague Rules art 4.
[64] The Touraine, [1928] P.58, 66 per Hill, J.
[65] See T.K.Thommen Bills of Lading in International Law and Practice (Eastern Book, Lucknow, 2002) 45-46. “The carrier’s liability under the Hamburg Rules arises by virtue of such contract and he cannot stipulate out of the minimum responsibility cast on him under the Rules, whether or not a bill of lading has been demanded by the shipper and issued to him.”
[66] US v Atlantic Mut. Ins. Co. (1952) 343 US 236, 238-239.
[67] US v The Esso Belgium (1950) 90 F Supp 836 (SD NY).
[68] US v Farr Sugar Corp (1951) 191 F 2d 370 (2nd Cir).
[69] US v Atlantic Mut, above, 236.
[70] US v Atlantic Mut, above, 239.
[71] US v Atlantic Mut, above, 240.
[72] US v Atlantic Mut, above, 240.
[73] See US v Atlantic Mut, above, 240.
[74] US v Atlantic Mut, above, 242.
[75] Halcyon Lines v. Haenn Ship Corp. (1952) 342 US 282, 286.
[76] See Collision Convention art 4.
[77] See Joseph C. Smith “Comparative Aspects of Commonwealth and U.S. Law Since the Collision Convention” (1983) 57 Tul L R1092, 1118.
[78] Elder, Dempster & Co., Ltd., and Others v. Paterson, Zochonis & Co., Ltd (1922) 12 Ll L Rep 69 (KB); [1923] 1 KB 420 (CA); Paterson, Zochonis & Co., Ltd v Elder, Dempster & Co., Ltd., and Others (1922) 13 Ll L Rep 513 (CA); Elder, Dempster & Co., Ltd., and Others v. Paterson, Zochonis & Co., Ltd [1924] AC 522 (HL); (1924) 18 Ll L Rep 319 (HL).
[79] The similar cases can be in Australia Gilbert Stokes& Kerr Proprietary, Ltd. v. Dalgety & Co., Ltd., (1948) 81 Ll L Rep 337 (NSW Sup Ct); Waters Trading Company, , Ltd. v. Dalgety &Co. Ltd. [1951] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 385 (NSW Sup Ct) in U.S. A.M. Collins & Co. v. Panama Railroad Company (1952) 197 F ed 893 (2nd Cir).
[80] Adler v. Dickson and Another [1954] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 267, 271 (CA).
[81] Elder, Dempster & Co., Ltd., and Others v. Paterson, Zochonis & Co., Ltd [1924] AC 522, 548 (H.L).
[82] Midland Silicones v. Scurttons [1962] 2 W.L.R 186, 191 (HL).
[83] See Adler v. Dickson, above, 271.
[84] Elder, Dempster & Co., Ltd., and Others v. Paterson, Zochonis & Co., Ltd (1922) 12 Ll L Rep 69 (KB); [1923] 1 KB 420 (CA); Paterson, Zochonis & Co., Ltd v Elder, Dempster & Co., Ltd., and Others (1922) 13 Ll L Rep 513 (CA); Elder, Dempster & Co., Ltd., and Others v. Paterson, Zochonis & Co., Ltd [1924] AC 522 (HL); (1924) 18 Ll L Rep 319 (HL).
[85] Adler v. Dickson, above, 272.
[86] Adler v. Dickson, above, 272.
[87]Adler v. Dickson, above, 272.
[88] Midland Silicones v. Scurttons [1962] 2 W.L.R 186, 192-193 (HL).
[89] Elder, Dempster & Co., Ltd., and Others v. Paterson, Zochonis & Co., Ltd (1922) 12 Ll L Rep 69 (KB); [1923] 1 KB 420 (CA); Paterson, Zochonis & Co., Ltd v Elder, Dempster & Co., Ltd., and Others (1922) 13 Ll L Rep 513 (CA); Elder, Dempster & Co., Ltd., and Others v. Paterson, Zochonis & Co., Ltd [1924] AC 522 (HL); (1924) 18 Ll L Rep 319 (HL).
[90] Midland Silicones v. Scurttons, above, 186.
[91] Midland Silicones v. Scurttons, above, 186.
[92] Samir Mankabady “Comments on the Hamburg Rules” in Samir Mankabady(ed) The Hamburg Rules on the Carriage of Goods by Sea (A.W. Sijthoff, Leyden, 2002) 27, 68.
[93] Eurymedon [1974] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 534 (PC); [1975] AC 154.
[94] Mankabady, above, 68.
[95] The Hamburg Rules, art 7 (2).
[96] See the Hamburg Rules art 5 (1).
[97] Brian Makins “Sea Carriage of Goods Liability which Route for Australia” (Fourteenth International Trade Law Conference, Canberra, 16 October 1987) 11-12.
[98] Gosse Millard v. Canadian Gov''t Merchant Marine, [1928] All ER 97, 98 (HL).
[99] The Hamburg Rules art 5 (1).
[100] Convention for the Unification of Certain Rules Relating to International Carriage by Air 1929 (Warsaw Convention) art 18(1).
[101] C.C.Nicoll “Do the Hamburg Rules Suit a Shipper-Dominated Economy” 24 Mar. L. J 151, 159.
[102] Nicoll, above, 160.
[103] Gosse Millard v. Canadian Government Merchant Marine, Ltd [1927] 2 KB 432, 434 (CA); (1927) 28 Ll L Rep 88, 103 (CA).
[104] Gosse Millard v. Canadian Government Merchant Marine, above, 434.
[105] See Albacora S. R. v. Westcott & Laurance Line, Ltd [1966] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 53, 56 (HL).
[106] Albacora v Westcott & Laurance Line, above, 63.
[107] If the cargo owner still claim the loss on the ground that the carrier’s servants didn’t exercise the duty of care, the case will still be dismissed. It is ridiculous that the carrier is required to keep the cargo refrigerated while he is not instructed and in fact the ship doesn’t have a refrigerated hold. However, if the cargo owner claims the loss in another way, as Lord Pearce pointed out in his judgement, that the ship is not suitable to convey this cargo, the situation might be better than it was for the cargo owner. See Albacora v Westcott & Laurance Line, above, 61.
[108] Rio Tinto Company, Ltd. v The Seed Shipping Company, Ltd (1926) 24 Ll L Rep 316, 324 (KB).
[109] Yawata Iron & Steel v. Anthony Shipping (1975) 396 F Supp 619; 1975 AMC 1602 (SD NY); 538 F ed 317; 1976 AMC 2685 (2nd Cir).
[110] Yawata Iron & Steel v. Anthony Shipping (1975) 396 F Supp 619, 621.
[111] Yawata Iron & Steel v. Anthony Shipping, ahove, 625.
[112] See R. Glenn Bauer “Conflicting Liability Regimes: Hague-Visby v. Hamburg Rules---A Case by Case Analysis” (1993) 24 J. Mar. L. & Com. 53, 62.
[113] The Hamburg Rules art 5(1).
[114] Brian Makins “Sea Carriage of Goods Liability which Route for Australia” (Fourteenth International Trade Law Conference, Canberra, 16 October 1987) 10.
[115] Makins, above, 10.
[116] Makins, above, 10.
[117] John O. Honnold “Ocean carriers and cargo; clarity and fairness - Hague or Hamburg?” (1993) 24 J. Mar L&Com 75, 81.
[118] Honnold, above, 100.
[119] J.F. Wilson “Basic Carrier Liability and the Right of Limitation” in Samir Mankabady(ed) The Hamburg Rules on the Carriage of Goods by Sea (A.W. Sijthoff, Leyden, 2002) 137, 140.
|
