| Over the past 30 years the transportation of goods has developed beyond recognition. The transportation infrastructure is sophisticated and relatively efficient and it is not unusual for goods to be shipped by more than one mode of transportation. Unfortunately, private law has not kept pace with these infrastructure changes. Therefore, a different liability regime applies to every unimodal type of transportation. Though, each unimodal regime is usually based on similar principles they are sufficiently different, from each other, to create a great deal of uncertainty when trying to assess the liability of the participants, in the transportation venture. Such uncertainly is highlighted, for example, when the exact time of the loss or damage cannot be ascertained---which liability regime is applicable?; An individual who engages a forwarder will not be particularly concerned with the above and generally assumes that by dealing with a forwarder, the forwarder will be liable for any loss or delay. Unfortunately, this is not always the case and depending on the terms upon which the forwarder contracts i.e. as agent, principal, carrier etc., and the application of any mandatory liability regime the forwarder may limit or escape liability altogether. Thereby leaving the customer without an effective remedy.; In this thesis we have examined the common law evolution of the freight forwarder from their traditional role as agents to their modern sophisticated role, as a "one stop shop," which more closely resembles that of principal. With particular emphasis on how forwarders' have coped with the advent of multimodal transportation and its legal uncertainty. |
