Any opinions, findings, conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of LawTeacher.
Critically analyse the advantages and disadvantages of using a multimodal transport system in the carriage of goods.
Introduction: Nowadays, there is a growing tendency, where most of the shipments are carried under contract of carriage with the involvement of multimodal or combined transport. In the direction of integrated approach towards transport, it is considered as the first step, for which transportation of goods is now easy between continents, and when it is difficult or impossible to use just one mode of transport. Within the multimodal transport (MT) system, the use of containers, roll-on/roll-off (ro-ro) vehicles, and barges has reduced risk and saved money and time. With the support of information technology, the transport management improves, and innovative ship and vehicle like articulated lories and cellular ships were introduced to the transport system which helped MT system to be formed.
On the other hand, MT system has brought some legal chaos. It was a new urgency to answer to the questions like who to sue (actual carrier or freight forwarder or contacting carrier) if the delivery is delayed or goods are lost or damaged, where to sue, time limit for initiating action, the basis of the liability and so on. So, the purpose of this paper is to critically analyse MT’s advantages and disadvantages in carriage of goods where regulating Conventions and Acts will have significant impact.
Definition: Before going into the main discussion, it is essential to know some of the basic definitions. International MT is defined as the carriage of goods by at least two different modes of transport under a ‘MT contract’, where the multimodal transport operator (MTO) takes the responsibility of goods form a place in one county to deliver it to another place of different country. MTO is a person who concludes a multimodal transport contract and assumes responsibility for the performance of the contract as a carrier. However, in through transport contract, the carrier shall contract as the merchant’s agent only and liable for any loss or damage between the port of loading and the port of discharge, but not for other parts of the carriage, even though the freight for the whole carriage was collected by him. In captain case, Cargo damaged while stored in Singapore responsibility of the Carrier was limited to the part of the transport performed by him.
Reasons why MT regime is important: According to The United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD), since the mid-1960s, there has been an enormous growth in Containerised transport as MT for carriage of goods, which will continue through future. It was also pointed out by UNCTAD that in 2000 container usage was 225.3 million where, as in 1965 it was zero.
In the same year, the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law (UNCITRAL), noted that, in 2001, USA carried about 68% of the value of all US foreign waterborne cargo regarding container liner industry (out of a total of US$720 billion, its value is of US$490 billion) of which 75- 80% was carried by MT. In 2000, around 60 million containers were carried, where 50% of them on a multimodal basis.
Through Bills of Lading: This type of bill involves more than one carrier, and trans-shipping of the goods at an intermediate port, where original carrier, is responsible for entire voyage, or undertakes responsibility for the part of the voyage, or acts as agent for other carriers involved. There is an ambiguity, regarding the issue of being document of title. Sometimes, it becomes essential to include Himalaya or circular indemnity clauses in bills of lading (B/L) to protect the subcontractors. Moreover, it will be difficult to identify responsibility of principle or participating careers, therefore, difficulty of proving the place where the damage has occurred.
Combined Transport Bills: In MT, actual contractor can take separate B/L, waybills or other transport documents from the separate actual carriers who are his subcontractors. Under the combined transport bills, the cargo owners will have contractual right for recovering damage or loss occurred by the contractual career, and as it regulates all stages of carriage, it will also be used as right of recourse against actual carriers.
However, to enjoy the contractual right, this type of B/L should be a document of title – by which property and possession in the goods mentioned in the bill can pass, and there is a huge debate of being a document of title or not. A ‘received for shipment’ B/L can be a combined transport B/L, and by annotating it with the date of shipment it will become shipped bill, and constitute a document of title. Actually, the thing that matters is performing careers’ capacity to control delivery, which was illustrated in Spectra case, where it was stated that by obtaining a right to give direction to the warehouseman to delivery, a party could become a bailee of goods.
Impact of COGSA 1992: Though, COGSA 1992 has not given definition of B/L, s. 1 (2) (b) stats that it applies to ‘received for shipment bills’. However, we have already discussed how received for shipment bills becomes shipped B/L, and regarded as document of title. Moreover, there is no reference of contract being by sea, but contract of carriage contained or evidenced by B/L. So, the document will regard as document of title between shipment and competition of voyage, therefore, allowing the lawful holder also to sue for the damages occurred outside the sea carriage period. If it doesn’t regard as B/L, then a question may arise whether combined transport bills may fall within the scope of COGSA 1992 relating to waybills, but still there will be risk regarding interpretation. The document which identifies the person to deliver the goods mentioned in the contract is a waybill, whereas, with combined transport B/L delivery will be made if such a document is produced. So, it will be a problem if the person to delivery is not identified. It is evident form the Act that combined transport waybill is excluded from the scope of the Act, which addressed waybills as a receipt for goods of contract of carriage by sea.
Liability System: For the absence of any uniform Convention, currently, provisions of some unimodal conventions are dealing with multimodal transport, for example art. 31 of Warsaw Convention for air transport, for rail COTIF-CIM 1999 and art. 2 of CMR convention. However, Geneva Convention on International Multimodal Transport of Goods (MT Convention) 1980 was drawn up by UN to introduce a set of uniform rules. This Convention introduced a modified uniform liability system, limited liability applies to limited liability along with uniform liability. Art. 16 provides a liability for fault with reversed burden of proof similar to Hamburg Rules. Nonetheless, to some extent this system makes the area of multimodal transport complex. It provides two limitation for unlocalised damages. Firstly, if MT involves carriage by sea or by inland waterway, MTO will be liable for 920 SDRs per package or other shipping unit, or 2.75 SDRs per kg, whichever is the higher. In World case his limit was considered. This figure is about 10% higher than Hamburg Rules and about 20% higher than Hague-Visby (H-V) Rules. Secondly, if MT does not involve carriage by sea or by inland waterway, the the limitation amount is raised to a higher level of 8.33 SDR per kg (same as CMR amount). However, the limits of liability will be determined by reference to any applicable International Convention or mandatory national law which provides a higher limit of liability than that of the 1980’s MT Convention for localised loss. Arts. 18 and 19 clearly apply a network-like system by derogating the principle of a unitary system. Moreover, an improvement in the area, MTO will be liable for delay regardless of the stage of occurrence delay, therefore, no need of proving for the claimant the leg where the delay occurred. The Convention did not solve all the significant problems. Mode of transport has not been defined, hence, it is not clear whether it is restricted to the vehicle (e.g. ship, plane), the medium (e.g. sea, air) or, both. As the Convention is seen overly consignor-friendly, it has not attracted the required number of signatures to come into force and parties of combined transport needs to come up with the solution of their problem.
However, there are some situation in MT of carriage such as, road carriage to the seaport Felixstowe; storage of goods following reception by, the sea career and combined transport career in Birmingham; storage of goods pending collection by road career where no International Convention apply. Nonetheless, national law like Unfair Contracts Terms Act 1977 may apply in these stages and it becomes difficult to find out where the loss or damages occurred in containerised goods, on which compensation payable to cargo claimant may depend. Another problem is to determine which career is liable for loss if the freight forwarder doses not act as principal with whom the shipper has contract. To get rid of this kind of problems, it becomes essential to introduce uniform system in the operation of the carriage by MT.
ICC Rules 1975: These rules are applicable to every contract involved for the performance of combined transport (CT) of goods, evidenced by CT document. When CT is issued to CTO, he undertakes to do all the steps necessary towards MT from the time of taking charge of the goods to delivery, and he will be liable for his own acts or omission, as well as his agents or servants or other persons whom he involved for the performance of the contract. This is how CTO takes the responsibility of the omission or acts of the sea and land carriers, whom he involved in MT of goods, even though he was not physically involved with MT of goods. When the stage where the loss or damage occurred is unknown, the limit of liability is 30 francs per KG, but when known international convention or national law provisions related to the stage will be applicable. However, complex question of causation may arise as to who will be liable when delay occurs more than one stages by successive carriers. CTO will be liable only when the stages of delay are known, this area remains uncertain.
UNCTAD/ICC Rules 1992: UNCTD and ICC joined forces in 1992 to introduce new rules for MT transport – a movement away liability regime of H-V Rules to Hamburg Rules. These Rules are purely contractual in nature and apply only if they are incorporated into a contract of carriage. When they are incorporated, any additional terms of the combined transport contract that conflicts with these will be superseded. However, to be effective they must not contradict the mandatory provisions of international conventions or national law which are applicable to the multimodal transport contract. These rules are based on MT Convention (modified network liability system). Under these rules for ensuring delivery of goods, MTO undertakes to perform or procure to perform all necessary acts and will be liable for the loss, damage or delay in delivery for the negligence of his own, his servants or agents or any other person referred to in Rule 4.1, unless the proves otherwise. Moreover, additional defences such as error in navigation and fire are available for liability in cases of sea carriage or by inland waterways. Limitation of liability figure is 2 SDR per kilogramme or 666.67 SDR per package or unit of gross weight of the goods lost or damaged, whichever is the higher will apply in case of carriage by sea or inland waterways (same as Hague – Visby figure), otherwise, 8.33 SDR per kilogramme of gross weight of the goods lost or damaged will be applied (CMR package limit). For localised loss in network liability system, the provisions of an applicable international convention or mandatory national law will determine the limit of liability of the MTO for such loss or damage.  Time limit for claiming the loss or damage is 9 months, but it will not apply if H-V Rules or CMR applies to the contract. Since major seafaring states did not support Hamburg Rules, it seems very unlikely that these Rules will be used widely in future.
Standard B/L: Most container operators have their own standard forms of bills. Further, standard forms of contract were introduced by Baltic and International Maritime Council (BIMCO), namely, COMBICONBILL 1995/2016, MULTIDOC 95/2016. A modified network system to both liability and limitation is Applied by COMBICONBILL. MTO will be liable between the time he receives the goods into his charge and the time of delivery, and responsible (however, eight specific defences available for MTO) for the acts and omissions of anybody he uses for the performance of the MT transportation. The change it has brought, regarding the career’s liability, he will be held liable for loss or delay (not specifically mentioned in H-V Rules) which will be the amount not exceeding, the value of the goods, or the freight; whichever is the lesser. The particular compulsory regime will be applied, if it is satisfied that, while carrying the goods, the damages were done by certain transport mode and that the carriage is controlled by a compulsory unimodal (international or national) regime.
Though, ICC Rules applied to MULTIDOC, the modifications are there. Firstly, where the inland waterways or sea is the place of the damages, loss or delay, the exceptions in art. IV (2) of H-V Rules will be applied, except (q)’s heading. Secondly, the maximum package limit is US $500, when the US COGSA 1936 is applied. Finally, if the consignor declared in writing about interest in timely delivery, which was acceptance by MTO also in writing, only then the MTO can be held liable for the delay, otherwise not.
Hamburg and Hague-Visby Rules: The Hamburg Rules apply to sea carriage and are less restrictive in nature and favors cargo owners. On the Other hand, HV rules protects third parties which is not a major factor in new regime. However, Hamburg Rules require contract for carriage must by sea and must be between two different states, which is like HV Rules. Carrier will be responsible during, the charge of the goods at the port of loading, the carriage, at the port of discharge. In the MSC Amsterdam, container terminal after discharge was included, which was held not part of The Hague Rules. Even where it is actually performed by subsequent carriers, for the whole carriage, art. 10 of Hamburg Rules makes the initial carrier responsible, which is similar to the ICC recommended Uniform Rules and CMR for MTDocument. So, it makes the cargo-owner free from the task of establishing the exact nature of the relationship between a series of carriers. The career’s general liability is for the acts and omissions of his agents or servants. However, whether this extends to the negligence of the carrier’s independent contractors is not clear, for example, as was decided to be the case in Riverstone, where refits were concerned. Under art. III (1) and (2) of Hague-Visby, there is no explicit liability for delay, and no list of excepted perils, yet defence is available for the career regarding live animals in art. 5(5). For containers, the art. 6(2) of Hamburg Rules is similar to H-V Rules, where by agreement or usage of trade can cover deck cargo. Moreover, the purpose of the both rules is to protect the actual carrier from tort claims. Regarding a carrier’s liability for his servants or agents intentional or reckless acts, art. 8 of Hamburg Rules is silent. So, it will depend on the national courts to determine when their acts can be seen, as career’s act, and in this situation, there is a high possibility that they might not limit career’s action against them. Despite all these, the Hamburg Rules remains essentially a sea convention, although it can cover carriage contracts of MT.
The Rotterdam Rules: Itwas adopted by the General Assembly of United Nations in 2008. It applies not only to carriage of goods by sea, adopted by UNCITRAL Convention in 2009, extended towards ‘door-to-door’ multimodal operations because the place of delivery or port of discharge may involve carriage by other modes in addition to sea carriage, and in different states. This requirement under art. 5 (1) emphasizes the Convention’s “maritime plus” characteristic and may be helpful in avoiding conflict with other Conventions. However, regarding the nature and context of additional carriage (whether it is for air or land or regarding pickup and delivery, or related to border crossing), no limitation criteria are mentioned. It is worth mentioning that unlike H-V Rules, the application of the Convention does not depend on the requirement of issuing B/L, but on limited documentary requirement. The regime will still apply to a consignee, controlling party or holder who is not a party to excluded agreement, even where an excluded contract is involved. In this situation, there is no guidance provided by the Convention on which party is entitled to sue for damage or loss to goods. According to art. 18 (a), the career will be liable if any loss, damage or delay happens for the fault of any performing party. Responsibility of the career lasts form the receipt of the goods by him to delivery, but the port regulators may force the career to take the goods from or deliver to port authorities before the final delivery. There remains a question whether damages under those authorities should reduce the responsibility of the career. It is apparent that the parties are free to determine the point to takeover and delivery of goods, since the contractual scope of the contract is not controlled by the Convention. When sued in contract or tort, the Convention will give the career and certain other persons the benefit of defences and limits, which is also extended to the master, crew, the maritime performing career and party, any other person performing services on board the ship and career’s employee. One of the most remarkable changes brought by the convention is introduction of electronic alternatives of B/L, which will be functionally equivalent to their paper counterparts. Moreover, unlike Hamburg Rules and Hague rules, generally, no conversion of ‘shipped B/L’ from ‘received for shipment’ is needed. The Convention goes further to protect consignee of a non-negotiable document which needs to surrender for delivery of the goods and the particulars are favors the consignee. Further, protection is also provided for the consignees or holder from the career from ascertaining against them that the freight has not been met, where the contract particulars indicate “freight period”. Even more radical, it is possible to transfer holder’s or consignee’s right of control by giving a notice to career, including electrical notice.
There are some other problems with multimodal transport system. In multimodal liability regimes, it is difficult to know when damage has occurred and there is no unified regime for different legs, but regimes existed for road and rail carriage. Rotterdam cares for them by leaving them place, nonetheless, its efficacy is limited as a ‘door-to-door’ regime. A uniform multimodal liability regime would have to take higher liability limits than road and rail liability limits, which are higher than H-V Rules, therefore, hampering the competitiveness. Conflict with another convention may happen, as parties can entirely determine whether to add other modes of transport. ‘Network’ solution adopted by Rotterdam resolves this problem by stating that different regimes apply to each stage of the multimodal operation. In spite of all these, it is very difficult to assess the prospective success of the Convention since by 1 July only three States have signed for ratification and still twenty more to ratify.
Conclusion: It is apparent from the above discussion that MT industry has been taking lots of initiatives to improve its services and overcome problems. Though, carriage of goods by MT is very sophisticated, the legal infrastructure is not that much. To any MT contract, lots of transport Conventions are possibly applicable which create further confusion in using the appropriate Convention in resolving legal disputes between contracting parties, as a result waste of a huge amount of money. Till now, no general acceptance has obtained through mandatory convention or private voluntary rules, or by any uniform or network proposals. Nonetheless, the best solution to this is to abolish individual Conventions by introducing a uniform one, which can be applied for all MT contracts. This may take a long time to introduce such one, but in the long run, costs and many current problems can be solved.
Table of Cases
- Barber v Meyerstein (1871) LR 4 HL 317
- Lickbarrow v Mason (1794) 5 TR 683
- Spectra International Plc v Hayesoak Ltd  1 Lloyd’s Rep. 153
- Traigura Beheer BV v Mediterranean Shipping Company SA  EWCA Civ 794;  2 Lloyd’s Rep 622
- Riverstone Meat and Property Co. v. Lancashire Shipping Co.  A.C. 807  2 W.L.R. 269
- World Transport v. Royte  1 Lloyd’s Rep. 381
- Captain v. Far Eastern Steamship Co.  1 Lloyd’s Rep. 595
Table of Legislation
- Carriage of Goods by Sea Act 1992
- Conlinebill 2000
- International Convention for the Unification of Certain Rules of Law Relating to Bills of Lading 1968 (Hague-Visby Rules)
- NEGOTIABLE COMBINED TRANSPORT BILL OF LADING (COMBICONBILL 2016)
- NEGOTIABLE MULTIMODAL TRANSPORT BILL OF LADING (MULTIDOC 2016)
- The Convention on Contracts of International Carriage of Goods wholly or Partly by Sea (The Rotterdam Rules) 2008
- Uniform Customs and Practice for Documentary Credits (UCP) 600
- United Nations Convention on the Carriage of Goods by Sea 1978 (Hamburg Rules)
- United Nations Convention on International Multimodal Transport of Goods (The MT Convention) 1980
- Uniform Rules for Combined Transport Document 1975 (ICC Rules)
- UNCTAD/ICC Rules for Multimodal Transport Documents 1992
- Baughen S, Shipping law (6th edn, Routledge 2015)
- Glass D A, Freight Forwarding and Multimodal Transport Contracts (1st edn, Routledge 2012)
- McKendrick E and Goode R, Goode on Commercial Law (5th edn, LexisNexis 2016)
- Todd P, Principles of the Carriage of Goods by Sea (Routledge 2015)
- Alcántara J ‘The new regime and multimodal transport’  L.M.C.L.Q. 399, 400
- Carr I M, ‘The scope of application of Hamburg Rules and Hague-Visby Rules: a comparison’ (1992) 3(6) I.C.C.L.R. 214
- Carr I, ‘International multimodal transport – United Kingdom’ (1998) 4(3) Int. T.L.R. 99
- Hancock C, ‘Multimodal transport and the new UN Convention on the carriage of goods’ (2008) 14(6) JIML 484, 486.
- Diamond A, ‘THE ROTTERDAM RULES’  L.M.C.L.Q 445
- Faber D, ‘THE PROBLEMS ARISING FROM MULTIMODAL TRANSPORT’  L.M.C.L.Q. 503
- Franco M, ‘Multimodal transport after the Rotterdam Rules: will it work this time?’ (2012) 18(3) JIML 208
- Masud R, ‘The emerging legal regime for multimodal transport’ (1992) 7 I.B.L.J. 825
- Nikaki T, ‘The Statutory Himalaya-type protection under the Rotterdam Rules: Capable of filling the gap?’ (2009) 4 JBL 243
- Waldron A.J, ‘The Hamburg Rules – a boondoggle for lawyers?’  J.B.L. 305
- ‘What is a door to door container shipping service?’ <http://www.icontainers.com/ocean-freight/what-is-door-to-door/> accessed 4 April 2017
- United Nations Commission on International Trade Law
- <http://www.uncitral.org/uncitral/en/uncitral_texts/transport_goods/2008rotterdam_rules.htl>accessed 10 April 2017
- United Nations Commission on International Trade Law
- <http://www.uncitral.org/uncitral/en/uncitral_texts/transport_goods/rotterdam_status.html> accessed 11 April 2017
Reports and others:
- UNCTAD, ‘MULTIMODAL TRANSPORT: THE FEASIBILITY OF AN INTERNATIONAL LEGAL INSTRUMENT’ (UNCTAD/SDTE/TLB/2003/1, 2003)
- United Nations Commission on International Trade Law, ‘Transport Law: Preparation of a draft instrument on the carriage of goods [by sea]’ (A/CN.9/WG.III/WP.29, 2003)
 Ross Masud, ‘The emerging legal regime for multimodal transport’ (1992) 7 I.B.L.J. 825, 826.
 Ewan McKendrick and Roy Goode, Goode on Commercial Law (5th edn, LexisNexis 2016) 1136.
 Manuel Franco, ‘Multimodal transport after the Rotterdam Rules: will it work this time?’ (2012) 18(3) JIML 208
 A single contract for the carriage of goods by at least two different modes of transport
(UNCTAD/ICC Rules 1992, r. 2.1)
 United Nations Convention on International Multimodal Transport of Goods 1980 (MT Convention), art 1 (1).
 UNCTAD/ICC Rules, r. 2.2; see also MT Convention, art 1(2).
 Conlinebill 2000, cl. 8.
 UNCTAD, ‘MULTIMODAL TRANSPORT: THE FEASIBILITY OF AN INTERNATIONAL LEGAL INSTRUMENT’ (UNCTAD/SDTE/TLB/2003/1, 2003) para 6.
 Christopher Hancock, ‘Multimodal transport and the new UN Convention on the carriage of goods’ (2008) 14(6) JIML 484, 485.
 United Nations Commission on International Trade Law, ‘Transport Law: Preparation of a draft instrument on the carriage of goods [by sea]’ (A/CN.9/WG.III/WP.29, 2003) para 18.
 Ibid para 25.
 Simon Baughen, Shipping Law (6th edn, Routledge 2015) 166.
 Ibid 166-67.
 Baughen (n 13) 167.
 Established by Lickbarrow v Mason (1794) 5 TR 683.
 Established by Barber v Meyerstein (1871) LR 4 HL 317.
 Baughen (n 17).
 Baughen (n 13) 168.
 Carriage of Goods by Sea Act 1992, s. 5(1).
 Baughen (n 22).
 Carriage of Goods by Sea Act 1992, s. 1 (3)(b).
 Ibid s. 1 (3)(a).
 Baughen (n 13) 170.
 McKendrick and Goode (n 2) 1141.
 Glass D A (n 15) para 3.107.
 Geneva Convention on International Multimodal Transport of Goods (MT Convention) 1980, art. 18 (1).
 Indra Carr, ‘International multimodal transport – United Kingdom’ (1998) 4(3) Int. T.L.R. 99.
 835 SDRs per package or 2.5 SDRs per kg as mentioned in Hamburg Rules, art. 6.
 666.67 SDRs per package or 2 SDRs per kg as mentioned in International Convention for the Unification of Certain Rules of Law Relating to Bills of Lading 1968 (Hague-Visby Rules), art. IV, r. 5(a) as amended.
 MT Convention, art. 18 (3).
 Ibid art. 19.
 Diana Faber, ‘THE PROBLEMS ARISING FROM MULTIMODAL TRANSPORT’  4 L.M.C.L.Q. 503, 508.
 McKendrick and Goode (n 2) 1142.
 Ibid 1143.
 Indira Carr, ‘International multimodal transport – United Kingdom’ (1998) 4(3) Int. T.L.R. 99, 110.
 Baughen (n 13) 170.
 McKendrick and Goode (n 2) 1140.
 McKendrick and Goode (n 2) 1140.
 ICC 1975, r 11.
 Ibid r. 13.
 Ibid r. 14.
 McKendrick and Goode (n 2)1143.
 UNCTAD/ICC Rules for Multimodal Transport Documents 1992, r. 1.1.
 Ibid r. 1.2.
 Ibid r. 13.
 Baughen (n 13) 171.
 UNCTAD/ICC 1992 (n 25) r. 5.1.
 Subject to the overriding requirement of exercise of due diligence to provide a seaworthy vessel. UNCTAD (n 25) r. 5.4.
 UNCTAD/ICC 1992, r. 6.
 Ibid r. 6.4.
 Ibid r. 10.
 McKendrick and Goode (n 2) 1143.
 Christopher Hancock, ‘Multimodal transport and the new UN Convention on the carriage of goods’ (2008) 14(6) JIML 484, 486.
 Ibid cl. 12.
 Ibid cl. 11.
 MULTIDOC, cl. 10 (c).
 Hamburg Rules, art. 2.
 Hamburg Rules, art. 4.
 A.J. Waldron, ‘The Hamburg Rules – a boondoggle for lawyers?’  J.B.L. 305, 307.
 The Hamburg Rules, art. 5.
 Paul Todd, Principles of the Carriage of Goods by Sea (Routledge 2015) 364.
 Indira Mahalingam Carr, ‘The scope of application of Hamburg Rules and Hague-Visby Rules: a comparison’ (1992) 3(6) I.C.C.L.R. 214, 217.
 See art. 7 of The Hamburg Rules and art. IV of Hague-Visby Rules.
 A.J. Waldron, ‘The Hamburg Rules – a boondoggle for lawyers?’  J.B.L. 305, 314.
 Todd (n 77).
 United Nations Commission on International Trade Law < http://www.uncitral.org/uncitral/en/uncitral_texts/transport_goods/2008rotterdam_rules.html> accessed 10 April 2017.
 McKendrick and Goode (n 2) 1143.
 As appears at icontainers website, door-to-door is a type of shipping where the freight forwarder guarantees that the goods will be picked up from and delivered to the points agreed upon by the end customer. ‘What is a door to door container shipping service?’ <http://www.icontainers.com/ocean-freight/what-is-door-to-door/> accessed 4 April 2017, see also José M. Alcántara, ‘The new regime and multimodal transport’  Lloyd’s Maritime and Commercial Law Quarterly 399, 400.
 Paul Todd (n 77) 313.
 The Rotterdam Rules, art. 5(1).
 Anthony Diamond QC, ‘THE ROTTERDAM RULES’  L.M.C.L.Q 445, 457.
 Glass D A (n 15) para 3.149.
 Ibid para 3.152.
 The Rotterdam Rules, art. 7.
 Anthony Diamond QC, ‘THE ROTTERDAM RULES’  L.M.C.L.Q 445,460.
 Paul Todd (n 77) 367.
 The Rotterdam Rules, art. 12.
 Glass D A (n 15) para 3.154.
 The Rotterdam Rules, art. 4(1); see also Theodora Nikaki, ‘The Statutory Himalaya-type protection under the Rotterdam Rules: Capable of filling the gap?’ (2009) 4 JBL 243-266.
 Between arrival of the goods at the port of loading of the ship and their departure from the port of discharge of a ship, the party who performs or undertakes to perform any of the career’s obligations, as stated in The Rotterdam Rules, art. 1 (7).
 Glass D A (n 15) para 3.155.
 The Rotterdam Rules, art. 8.
 See art. 15 (2) of the Hamburg Rules and art. III, r. 7 of Huge Rules.
 The Rotterdam Rules, art. 41 (b) (ii).
 Ibid art. 42.
 Ibid art 51 (1) (b).
 Paul Todd (n 77) 365.
 The Rotterdam Rules, art. 12(1).
 ‘CMI International Working Group on the Rotterdam Rules, ‘Questions and Answers on The Rotterdam Rules’ (2012) 7 <http://www.comitemaritime.org/Uploads/Rotterdam%20Rules/RotterdamRules_QA_10102012.pdf> accessed 4 April 2017.
 United Nations Commission on International Trade Law <http://www.uncitral.org/uncitral/en/uncitral_texts/transport_goods/rotterdam_status.html> accessed 11 April 2017.
 McKendrick and Goode (n 2) 1144.
Related ServicesView all
DMCA / Removal Request
If you are the original writer of this essay and no longer wish to have the essay published on the UK Essays website then please: