The fob contract has become a flexible instrument and it does not necessarily follow that the buyer is an original party to the contract of carriage. The effect of article III, r. 2 of the Hague-Visby Rules was not to override freedom of contract to reallocate responsibility for the functions described in that rule: ‘The phrase ‘shall properly and carefully load’ may mean that the carrier shall load and that he shall do it properly and carefully: or that he shall do whatever loading he does properly and carefully. The former interpretation perhaps fits the language more closely, but the latter may be more consistent with the object of the Rules. Their object, as it is put, I think, correctly in Carver’s Carriage of Goods by Sea, 9th ed (1952), p 186, is to define not the scope of the contract service but the terms on which that service is to be performed. The extent to which the carrier has to undertake the loading of the vessel may depend not only upon different systems of law but upon the custom and practice of the port and the nature of the cargo. It is difficult to believe that the Rules were intended to impose a universal rigidity in this respect, or to deny freedom of contract to the carrier. The carrier is practically bound to play some part in the loading and discharging, so that both operations are naturally included in those covered by the contract of carriage. But I see no reason why the Rules should not leave the parties free to determine by their own contract the part which each has to play. On this view the whole contract of carriage is subject to the Rules, but the extent to which loading and discharging are brought within the carrier’s obligations is left to the parties themselves to decide.’
Devlin J
[1954] 2 QB 402
Hague-Visby Rules III r2
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Evergreen Marine Corp v Aldgate Warehouse (Wholesale) Ltd ComC 28-Mar-2003
The claimant sought payment for freight charges and demurrage. Long standing arrangements meant that the defendant was not named as shipper.
Held: The f.o.b. contract has become a flexible instrument and it does not necessarily follow that the . .
Cited – Jindal Iron and Steel Co Ltd and others v Islamic Solidarity Shipping Company Jordan Inc (‘The Jordan II’) HL 25-Nov-2004
Cargo was damaged by rough handling during loading and/or discharging, and/or inadequate stowage due to failure to provide dunnage, failure to secure the coils and/or stacking them so that the bottom layers were excessively compressed. The House was . .
Approved – GH Renton and Co Ltd v Palmyra Trading Corporation of Panama HL 1957
An agreement transferring responsibility for loading, stowage and discharge of cargo from the shipowners to shippers, charterers and consignees is not invalidated by article III, r. 8.
Lord Somervell of Harrow said as to Art III r2: ‘It is, in . .
Applied – The Ciechocinek CA 1976
. .
Applied – The Arawa 1977
. .
Applied – The Filikos 1981
. .
Applied – The Strathnewton CA 1983
. .
Applied – The Panaghia Tinnou 1986
. .
Applied – The Holstencruiser 1992
. .
Applied – The Coral CA 1993
. .
Cited – J I MacWilliam Company Inc v Mediterranean Shipping Company SA; The ‘Rafaela S’ HL 16-Feb-2005
A US company bought a printing machine and ancillary equipment on CIF terms from an English company. The sellers consigned the goods to the buyers. The carriers were a container liner operator and the demise charterers of the vessels ‘Rosemary’ and . .
Cited – Volcafe Ltd and Others v Compania Sud Americana De Vapores Sa SC 5-Dec-2018
The claimant appellants, arranged shipment of bagged Colombian green coffee beans, stowed in 20 unventilated 20-foot containers from Panama to Rotterdam, Hamburg or Bremerhaven for on carriage to Bremen. The bill of lading for each consignment . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Transport
Updated: 01 December 2021; Ref: scu.180307