The bill of lading of a cargo contained two clauses of exceptions inconsistent with each other, the first, printed in large type, conferring on the owners of the vessel an absolute exemption from liability for damage to cargo, the second, printed in smaller type, an exemption qualified by a proviso that reasonable means must have been taken to provide against defects and unseaworthiness.
The cargo was damaged by the unseaworthiness of the vessel, which might have been provided against by the owners.
Held, on the principle that effect must be given if possible to every part of a document or contract, that the first clause was qualified by the second, and that the owners of the vessel were liable in damages to the owners of the cargo. (Decision of Court of Appeal affirmed.)
Observed by Lord Macnaghten ‘that a shipowner who wishes to escape from the liability which would attach to him for sending an unseaworthy vessel to sea must say so in very plain words.’ The indorsee of a bill of lading brought an action against the shipowners for damage to frozen meat shipped under the bill of lading for carriage from Melbourne to London.
Judges:
Lord Chancellor (Halsbury), Lord Macnaghten, and Lord Lindley
Citations:
[1905] UKHL 854, 42 SLR 854
Links:
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Transport
Updated: 26 April 2022; Ref: scu.621170
