Research on the evidential function of bill of lading (esp. Validity of unknown clauses, responsibility of carrier for the false statement in bill of lading)
| Project/Area Number |
16530063
|
|---|
| Research Category |
Grant-in-Aid for Scientific Research (C)
|
| Allocation Type | Single-year Grants |
|---|
| Section | 一般 |
|---|
| Research Field |
Civil law
|
|---|
| Research Institution | Waseda University |
|---|
Principal Investigator |
HAKOI Takashi Waseda University, Faculty of Law, Professor, 法学学術院, 教授 (60247202)
|
|---|
| Project Period (FY) |
2004 – 2005
|
| Project Status |
Completed (Fiscal Year 2005)
|
| Budget Amount *help |
¥1,200,000 (Direct Cost: ¥1,200,000)
Fiscal Year 2005: ¥600,000 (Direct Cost: ¥600,000)
Fiscal Year 2004: ¥600,000 (Direct Cost: ¥600,000)
|
|---|
| Keywords | Carriage of goods by sea / Bill of Lading / Unknown clauses / Statements in bill of lading / Responsibility of the Carrier / Hague Rules / Identification of goods / Contents of containers / 留保 |
|---|
| Research Abstract |
According to The Japanese COGSA (International Carriage of Goods by Sea Act 1957), a carrier shall issue to the shipper a bill of lading showing, as description of the goods, the nature of goods, the number of packages, or pieces, or quantity, or weight, the marks of goods and the apparent order and condition of the goods (art. 7).
And the statements in bill of lading which the evidential value extends to are not limited (art. 9).
In Japan, the traditional opinion has discussed separately statements necessary for the validity of bill of lading and their evidential function. And it has considered a statement about nature of goods as a statement which identify the goods, and as an absolutely necessary statement.
In this article, I criticize such an opinion while comparing it with the international convention 1924 (Hague Rules). And I insist to recognize a difference of a character of each description of the goods.
1) About a problem of unknown clause, I deny traditional opinion and show that a such clause about the contents of containers have no effect to identify the merchandises and even if there is not an unknown clause in the bill of lading, carrier does not take responsibility for the contents of containers.
2) About a problem of the false statement or miss representation about a nature of goods, I also deny the traditional opinion. I point out that these errors or mistakes do not have direct relations with the validity of a bill of lading and do not always generate responsibility of the carrier.
|
Report
(3 results)
Research Products
(2 results)
