| The Hague Rules provides the unification rules for international shipping, especially set forth the standard of carrier's responsibility and liability to change the unfair situation when carrier printed many exoneration clauses on Bills of Lading, hence, the convention accelerate the development of international trading and shipping industry. However, in practice, different contracting countries make different constructions on same articles so that contradicted consequences arising from different jurisdiction.The responsibility of management of cargo was stipulated in the Article 3 rule 2 of Hague Rules. Because of ambiguity in the wording, disputes arise in practice. The House of Lords in England interpreted this provision as not oblige the carrier to load, stow, carry and discharge the goods properly and carefully but only obliges the carrier to do so if the carrier has agreed to perform those functions. Contrarily, the 2nd circuit courts in United States consider the obligations in this provision are non-delegable duties for carrier who can not contract out those duty listed in the convention. Hence, where FIOST clause, which permit the carrier not only FREE OF EXPENSE but also RISKS of those functions of loading, discharging, stowage and trimming, was contracted in Bills of Lading, would this clause be null and void as article 3 rule 8 stipulated? In Jordan II, the House of Lords hold that carrier can not take responsibility of loading, discharging ,and stowing because of the FIOST clause in Bills of lading. But in United States, carrier can not avoid those responsibilities despite the FIOST clause in Bills of Lading. In my dissertation, I compared different cases in the United States and Britain, and analyse different views on this question, refer to the travaux preparatories during the period of drafting the convention to search the real intention of drafter, finally, I accept the view of United States court.Beside the questions above-mentioned, the relationship between the... |
PDF Full Text Request