CMI - SINGAPORE

The Uniformity Sub-Committee was undecided whether it should be one or two years.

1 Published in CMI Yearbook 1999 at pp 105-116
2 Article 17 provides
1. The carrier should be liable for the total or partial loss of the goods and for damage thereto occurring between the time when he takes over the goods and the time of delivery, as well as for any delay in delivery.
2. The carrier shall however be relieved of liability if the loss, damage or delay was caused by wrongful act or neglect of the claimant given otherwise than as the result of a wrongful act or neglect on the part of the carrier, by inherent vice of the goods or through circumstances which the carrier could not avoid and the consequences of which he was unable to prevent.
3. The carrier shall not be relieved of liability by reason of the defective condition of the vehicle used by him in order to perform the carriage, or by reason of the wrongful act or neglect of the person from whom he may have hired the vehicle or of the agents or servants of the latter.
4. Subject to Article 18, paragraphs 2-5 [which contain certain burden of proof provisions], the carrier shall be relieved of liability when the loss or damage arises from the special risks inherent in one or more of the following circumstances:
a) Use of open unsheeted vehicles when their use has been expressly agreed and specified in a consignment note;
b) The lack of, or defective condition of packing in the case of goods which, by their nature are liable to wastage or to be damaged when not packed or when not properly packed;
c) Handling, loading, stowage or unloading of the goods by the sender, the consignee or persons acting on behalf of the sender or the consignees;
d) The nature of certain kinds of goods which particularly exposes them to a total or partial loss or to damage, especially through breakage, rust, decay, desiccation, leakage, normal wastage, or the action of moth or vermin;
e) Insufficiency or inadequacy of marks or numbers on the packages;
f) The carriage of livestock.
5. Where under this article the carrier is not under liability in respect of some of the factors causing the loss, damage or delay, he shall only be liable to the extent that those factors for which he is liable under this article have contributed to the loss, damage or delay.
3 ‘Claimant’ is not read literally under the CMR; the carrier may plead the conduct of the sender or consignee. This point would need to be covered at the final drafting stage.
4 Whether it actually does, will depend on the wording of the letter if indemnity and the law applicable to the transfer of title (often the lex rei sitae), which may be another law than the law applicable to the contract of sale.
5 In some jurisdictions a carrier is not entitled to limit its liability for claims based on wrong delivery or conversion.
6 E.g. UK COGSA 1992, article 2, (2), refers to a bill of lading “possession (of which) no longer gives a right – as against the carrier – to possession of the goods to which the bill relates”.
7 This right may be lost if the goods have been resold for valuable consideration and a negotiable transport document has been endorsed to a third party acting in good faith.
8 The conventions relating to other modes of transport where the transport documents are non-negotiable include provisions on the right to instruct the carrier, see CMR article 12, Warsaw Convention article 12 and COTIF-CIM articles 30 – 32.
9 CMR, article 12, refers to “the right of disposal” and Warsaw Convention, article 12, to “right of disposition”. The use of these terms under transport law may create ambiguity in view of the existence of the term “right of disposal” under the law relating to the sale of goods. COTIF-CIM refers to “modification of the contract of carriage”. However, not all instructions may be modifications of the contract of carriage, at least not in maritime transport. The term “control” is used in article 7 of the CMI Rules for Electronic Bills of Lading. Under these Rules “control” has been translated into French as “disposition”.
10 See CMR, articles 12, (2), and 13. Here the right of control is connected to possession of the second copy (CMR consignment notes are issued in three copies) of the consignment note. This second copy is carried with the goods. A shipper looses his right of control when this second copy is handed over to the consignee. A consignee is entitled to require the handing over of the second copy as soon as the goods have arrived at their place of destination. As from the moment the consignee possesses the second copy or the moment that he claims the goods, “the carrier shall obey the orders of the consignee”.
11 Such priority rule has been inserted in sea waybills and has worked well in practice.





		13 Time Bar The Uniformity Sub-Committee was undecided whether it should be one or two years. 1 Published in CMI Yearbook 1999 at pp 105-116 2 Article 17 provides 1. The carrier should be liable for the total or partial loss of the goods and for damage thereto occurring between the time when he takes over the goods and the time of delivery, as well as for any delay in delivery. 2. The carrier shall however be relieved of liability if the loss, damage or delay was caused by wrongful act or neglect of the claimant given otherwise than as the result of a wrongful act or neglect on the part of the carrier, by inherent vice of the goods or through circumstances which the carrier could not avoid and the consequences of which he was unable to prevent. 3. The carrier shall not be relieved of liability by reason of the defective condition of the vehicle used by him in order to perform the carriage, or by reason of the wrongful act or neglect of the person from whom he may have hired the vehicle or of the agents or servants of the latter. 4. Subject to Article 18, paragraphs 2-5 [which contain certain burden of proof provisions], the carrier shall be relieved of liability when the loss or damage arises from the special risks inherent in one or more of the following circumstances: a) Use of open unsheeted vehicles when their use has been expressly agreed and specified in a consignment note; b) The lack of, or defective condition of packing in the case of goods which, by their nature are liable to wastage or to be damaged when not packed or when not properly packed; c) Handling, loading, stowage or unloading of the goods by the sender, the consignee or persons acting on behalf of the sender or the consignees; d) The nature of certain kinds of goods which particularly exposes them to a total or partial loss or to damage, especially through breakage, rust, decay, desiccation, leakage, normal wastage, or the action of moth or vermin; e) Insufficiency or inadequacy of marks or numbers on the packages; f) The carriage of livestock. 5. Where under this article the carrier is not under liability in respect of some of the factors causing the loss, damage or delay, he shall only be liable to the extent that those factors for which he is liable under this article have contributed to the loss, damage or delay. 3 ‘Claimant’ is not read literally under the CMR; the carrier may plead the conduct of the sender or consignee. This point would need to be covered at the final drafting stage. 4 Whether it actually does, will depend on the wording of the letter if indemnity and the law applicable to the transfer of title (often the lex rei sitae), which may be another law than the law applicable to the contract of sale. 5 In some jurisdictions a carrier is not entitled to limit its liability for claims based on wrong delivery or conversion. 6 E.g. UK COGSA 1992, article 2, (2), refers to a bill of lading “possession (of which) no longer gives a right – as against the carrier – to possession of the goods to which the bill relates”. 7 This right may be lost if the goods have been resold for valuable consideration and a negotiable transport document has been endorsed to a third party acting in good faith. 8 The conventions relating to other modes of transport where the transport documents are non-negotiable include provisions on the right to instruct the carrier, see CMR article 12, Warsaw Convention article 12 and COTIF-CIM articles 30 – 32. 9 CMR, article 12, refers to “the right of disposal” and Warsaw Convention, article 12, to “right of disposition”. The use of these terms under transport law may create ambiguity in view of the existence of the term “right of disposal” under the law relating to the sale of goods. COTIF-CIM refers to “modification of the contract of carriage”. However, not all instructions may be modifications of the contract of carriage, at least not in maritime transport. The term “control” is used in article 7 of the CMI Rules for Electronic Bills of Lading. Under these Rules “control” has been translated into French as “disposition”. 10 See CMR, articles 12, (2), and 13. Here the right of control is connected to possession of the second copy (CMR consignment notes are issued in three copies) of the consignment note. This second copy is carried with the goods. A shipper looses his right of control when this second copy is handed over to the consignee. A consignee is entitled to require the handing over of the second copy as soon as the goods have arrived at their place of destination. As from the moment the consignee possesses the second copy or the moment that he claims the goods, “the carrier shall obey the orders of the consignee”. 11 Such priority rule has been inserted in sea waybills and has worked well in practice.