The Contract of Affreightment as Expressed in Charterparties and Bills of Lading

This historic book may have numerous typos and missing text. Purchasers can usually download a free scanned copy of the original book (without typos) from the publisher. Not indexed. Not illustrated. 1886 edition. Excerpt: ... in The Freedom, L. R. 8 P. C. 594, at p. 601 (1871), that perils of the seas in a bill of lading, are to be interpreted as in an insurance policy is clearly wrong: see per Willes, J., L. R. 1 C. P. 612; per Brett, M.R., 10 Q. B. D. 531; per Lindley, L.J., 10 Q. B. D. 543; per Lord Blackburn, in Cory v. Burr (1883), 8 App. C. 398; The Chasea (1875), L. R. 4 A. & E., at p. 448. (?) The Oquendo (1878), 38 L. T. 151; The Catherine Chalmers (1875), 32 L. T. 847. (r) Walter v. Maitland (1821), 5 B. & A. 171; Davidson v. Burnand (1879), 4 L. R. C. P. 117; Redman v. Wilson (1845), 14 M. & W. 476. For further illustration of the difference in principle, consider Cory v. Burr (1883), 8 App. C. 393; West India Telegraph Co. v. Home Insurance Co. (1880), 6 Q. B. D. 51; Taylor v. Dunbar (1869), 4 L. R. C. P. 206, and compare Woodley v. Michel (1883), 11 Q. B. D. 47, with Smith v. Scott (1811), 4 Taunt. 126. (s) Grill v. Iron Screw Colliery Co. (1868), L. R. 1 C. P. at p. 612. () Qu&re, whether the words in brackets should not be omitted: see note to Article 78. prevented by the excepted perils. If the goods are not carried with reasonable care, and are consequently lost by perils of the sea, it becomes necessary to reconcile the two parts of the instrument, and this is done by holding that if the loss through perils of the seas is caused by previous default of the shipowner, he is liable for this breach of his contract." This explanation hardly meets such cases as Woodley v. Michel (t), where the shipowner has "carried with reasonable care, but the negligence of another ship is the ultimate cause of loss." At any rate the distinction exists, and the result is curious. A ship carries goods shipped under a bill of lading...