were punctured with pinholes because the master could not reasonable be expected
to detect their existence. But the same could not be said about the insufficiency of the
packing and the fact that the cans were seriously gashed, which were readily visible.
The law was reviewed by Colman J in The David Agmashenebeli
34 who concluded that the duty was as described in the previous paragraph., It was not simply
one to act honestly but also in accordance with an objective professional standard.
Although the master must exercise his own judgment as to the appearance of the
cargo, his opinion must be one that would be properly shared by a reasonable
observant master.
35
The Rotterdam Rules replicate this approach and also give express recognition to
a logical extension of the requisite standard. Article 36.4 indicates that the obligation
to make a statement in the transport document of the apparent order and condition of
the goods received is based on; (a) A reasonable external inspection of the goods as
packaged at the time the shipper delivers them to the carrier or a performing party;
and (b) Any additional inspection that the carrier or a performing carrier actually
performs before issuing the transport document or electronic transport record.
Par (b) addresses a point which appears not to have been expressly considered so
far by the common law but it is the essence of common sense. If beyond the basic
demands of his obligation the carrier resolves to conduct a detailed inspection, this
must be taken into account in determining what is or should have been reasonably
known by the carrier and recorded on the bill of lading. The carrier would be
expected to know that which would reasonably be revealed by the kind of inspection
undertaken.
2.3 The Test and Packaging
The nature of the test and the standard demanded indicates that when goods are
“packaged” the carrier cannot reasonably see beyond the packaging to the contents.
In the Rotterdam Rules reference is made to the “reasonable external inspection of
the goods as packaged”.
36
“Packaging” in this context is a word used widely to
include any kind of packaging, including containers and piping. In The
Athelviscount
37 kerosene was pumped through pipe lines on shore into the ship’s
pipe-lines and thence into the ship’s tanks. It was held that no reasonable examination could have detected a defect in the kerosene. Consequently if the packaging
(whatever its form) appears to be undamaged and in good order the carrier is entitled
to issue a transport document which states shipped in apparent good order and
condition.
34 Supra n. 28
35 Ibid, p. 105.
36 Article 36.4.
37 (1934) 48 Ll L Rep 164.
648
D. R. Thomas
to detect their existence. But the same could not be said about the insufficiency of the
packing and the fact that the cans were seriously gashed, which were readily visible.
The law was reviewed by Colman J in The David Agmashenebeli
34 who concluded that the duty was as described in the previous paragraph., It was not simply
one to act honestly but also in accordance with an objective professional standard.
Although the master must exercise his own judgment as to the appearance of the
cargo, his opinion must be one that would be properly shared by a reasonable
observant master.
35
The Rotterdam Rules replicate this approach and also give express recognition to
a logical extension of the requisite standard. Article 36.4 indicates that the obligation
to make a statement in the transport document of the apparent order and condition of
the goods received is based on; (a) A reasonable external inspection of the goods as
packaged at the time the shipper delivers them to the carrier or a performing party;
and (b) Any additional inspection that the carrier or a performing carrier actually
performs before issuing the transport document or electronic transport record.
Par (b) addresses a point which appears not to have been expressly considered so
far by the common law but it is the essence of common sense. If beyond the basic
demands of his obligation the carrier resolves to conduct a detailed inspection, this
must be taken into account in determining what is or should have been reasonably
known by the carrier and recorded on the bill of lading. The carrier would be
expected to know that which would reasonably be revealed by the kind of inspection
undertaken.
2.3 The Test and Packaging
The nature of the test and the standard demanded indicates that when goods are
“packaged” the carrier cannot reasonably see beyond the packaging to the contents.
In the Rotterdam Rules reference is made to the “reasonable external inspection of
the goods as packaged”.
36
“Packaging” in this context is a word used widely to
include any kind of packaging, including containers and piping. In The
Athelviscount
37 kerosene was pumped through pipe lines on shore into the ship’s
pipe-lines and thence into the ship’s tanks. It was held that no reasonable examination could have detected a defect in the kerosene. Consequently if the packaging
(whatever its form) appears to be undamaged and in good order the carrier is entitled
to issue a transport document which states shipped in apparent good order and
condition.
34 Supra n. 28
35 Ibid, p. 105.
36 Article 36.4.
37 (1934) 48 Ll L Rep 164.
648
D. R. Thomas