The development of dutch law 69 The carrier was obliged to exercise ‘due diligence to make the ship seaworthy and to carefully handle and stow and properly deliver the cargo’, but he could invoke a series of legal exonerations, enumerated In the Act, and moreover a statutory limit per package. Parallel with the Harter Act ran the international attempt to unify Bill of Lading clauses, dating back from mainly the last two decades of the 19th century. When in 1896 the CMI came into being, this attempt was continued on another level. Of course in this expert audience the story of the Hague Rules—Brussels Bill of Lading Convention need not be told. Likewise it is superfluous to say that its structure is not the ‘continental’ systembut in all aspects relevant in this paper, the Anglo-American system, basically derived from the Harter Act. To return to Molengraaff, his work on a new Dutch maritime code almost coincided with these international developments. His first draft dated frombefore the First World War, which interrupted its further progress until it resulted in the maritime reform Bill of 1924, the very year the Brussels Bill of Lading Convention became open for ratification. This Convention could not entirely be neglected in Molengraaff’s work. But nevertheless he did manage to maintain his own original concept. Molengraaff’s basic principles were laid down in sect. 468 Comm. Code: “1. The contract of carriage obliges the carrier (note here: the ‘master’ is no longer the responsible party) to take care for the preservation of the goods to be carried from the moment of receiving them until the moment of delivery. 2. The carrier is bound to make good loss, caused by non-delivery in whole or in part or by damage, unless he proves that (such) resulted from an event which he could not reasonably prevent or avoid, from inherent vice of the goods or fromfault of the shipper. 3. He guarantees the acts of his Erfiillungsgehilfe and the material which he uses during the carriage.” In its very core this new section is a modernised version of Sect. 345 of the preceding Code. Its innovations are threefold. a. In the first words, as was observed in the Note of Explanation with the Bill (written by Molengraaff), is meant to make clear that it is by the contract itself that the carrier has the duty to keep and deliver the goods safe and sound—which ended the controversy, mentioned above In the nature of the carrier’s obligation. b. The term ‘force majeure’ which gave rise to (as his Note states) ‘chronic controversy’, was struck out and in its place came a circumscription which followed the definition given in the Handelsgesetzbuch, Sect. 429/666. In addition may be remarked that this is a concept of ‘subjective’ force
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MjYyNDk=