which qualifies existing statements in the bill of lading as to the description and
apparent conditions of the goods”.
21
In contemporary practice it is usual to find the words “shipped in apparent good
order and condition” printed in the transport document, thereby presuming that the
goods shipped will be in apparent good order and condition unless the transport
document bears a contrary notation. If all is apparently well with the goods the
master or other agent simply signs the transport document and thereby affirms the
description in the bill. If the contrary is the case, the damage or defect is noted on the
bill, which is statement which detracts from the printed words in the bill indicating
that the good were shipped in apparent good order and condition, and results in a true
statement relating to the goods appearing in the bill of lading.
22
The Hamburg
23 and Rotterdam Rules also expressly state that if a transport
document fails to indicate the apparent order and condition of the goods at the
relevant time, it is deemed to have declared that the goods were in “apparent good
order and condition”.
24
The words “apparent good order and condition” raise some difficulties of meaning. The word “apparent” is clear enough, indicating the appearance of the goods and
is discussed further later in the text. But thereafter there is reference to good “order”
and “condition”. This raises a question whether the words are to be read separately or
as one, and if the former what is their separate meaning. In most instances it will not
be necessary to dissect the phrase, with it understood to indicate a single test to mean
what commercial parties would understand the words to mean: the phrase in its
generality indicating a single test. But occasions may arise when it will be necessary
to analyse the words closely and attribute meaning to each of the words. When this is
the case the word “good” may be understood to mean “proper”.
25 There has been
greater judicial examination of the word “condition” which is considered later in the
text.
26 It is of interest to note that in the Hamburg Rules the reference is to the
“condition” of the goods only.
27
There is an important qualification to the duty. The statement of apparent good
order and condition relates to the goods as described in the transport document. It is
not a wider endorsement of the commercial quality of the goods or their compliance
with the terms of any sale contract relating to the goods. The obligation of the master
is to determine whether the cargo loaded “appears to satisfy the description of its
21 Sea Success Maritime Inc. v African Maritime Carriers Ltd [2005] EWHC 1542(Comm), [2005]
2 Lloyd’s Rep 692 [23] Aikens J. This statement was made in the context of an obligation under a
time charterparty but it is suggested that the statement represents the general understanding of a
claused bill of lading.
22 Sea Success Maritime Inc. v African Maritime Carriers Ltd., ibid.
23 Art 16.2.
24 Art 39.3.
25 Sea Success Maritime Inc. v African Maritime Carriers Ltd., supra.
26 Infra under the title “Condition and quality of goods distinguished”.
27 Art 15.1(b).
646
D. R. Thomas
apparent conditions of the goods”.
21
In contemporary practice it is usual to find the words “shipped in apparent good
order and condition” printed in the transport document, thereby presuming that the
goods shipped will be in apparent good order and condition unless the transport
document bears a contrary notation. If all is apparently well with the goods the
master or other agent simply signs the transport document and thereby affirms the
description in the bill. If the contrary is the case, the damage or defect is noted on the
bill, which is statement which detracts from the printed words in the bill indicating
that the good were shipped in apparent good order and condition, and results in a true
statement relating to the goods appearing in the bill of lading.
22
The Hamburg
23 and Rotterdam Rules also expressly state that if a transport
document fails to indicate the apparent order and condition of the goods at the
relevant time, it is deemed to have declared that the goods were in “apparent good
order and condition”.
24
The words “apparent good order and condition” raise some difficulties of meaning. The word “apparent” is clear enough, indicating the appearance of the goods and
is discussed further later in the text. But thereafter there is reference to good “order”
and “condition”. This raises a question whether the words are to be read separately or
as one, and if the former what is their separate meaning. In most instances it will not
be necessary to dissect the phrase, with it understood to indicate a single test to mean
what commercial parties would understand the words to mean: the phrase in its
generality indicating a single test. But occasions may arise when it will be necessary
to analyse the words closely and attribute meaning to each of the words. When this is
the case the word “good” may be understood to mean “proper”.
25 There has been
greater judicial examination of the word “condition” which is considered later in the
text.
26 It is of interest to note that in the Hamburg Rules the reference is to the
“condition” of the goods only.
27
There is an important qualification to the duty. The statement of apparent good
order and condition relates to the goods as described in the transport document. It is
not a wider endorsement of the commercial quality of the goods or their compliance
with the terms of any sale contract relating to the goods. The obligation of the master
is to determine whether the cargo loaded “appears to satisfy the description of its
21 Sea Success Maritime Inc. v African Maritime Carriers Ltd [2005] EWHC 1542(Comm), [2005]
2 Lloyd’s Rep 692 [23] Aikens J. This statement was made in the context of an obligation under a
time charterparty but it is suggested that the statement represents the general understanding of a
claused bill of lading.
22 Sea Success Maritime Inc. v African Maritime Carriers Ltd., ibid.
23 Art 16.2.
24 Art 39.3.
25 Sea Success Maritime Inc. v African Maritime Carriers Ltd., supra.
26 Infra under the title “Condition and quality of goods distinguished”.
27 Art 15.1(b).
646
D. R. Thomas