Application of the Rotterdam Rules as Between the Carrier and the Consignee When No Negotiable Transport Document Is Issued

摘要

As Prof Thomas and Diamond QC rightfully criticise, Article 7 is quite puzzling, and when there is no negotiable transport document issued it does not provide clear answers to the questions of whether the establishment of a contract of carriage between the carrier and the consignee is necessary, and whether the carrier and the consignee have rights, obligations and liabilities against each other. However, these questions would be answered with the assistance of the drafting history and some relevant provisions. With regard to the first question, it would be argued that the literal interpretation and drafting history imply that the Convention applies between the carrier and the consignee as a matter of law. The answer to the second question, as indicated in this work, would be found with the assistance of the provisions on the definition of consignee, delivery of the goods and rights of controlling party, but of course different conclusions might be argued by different interpretations. It can be concluded that Article 7 would not be so complicated if the Convention would have contained provisions for the transfer of the rights and liabilities when no negotiable transport document is issued, or if the provision would have provided a separate paragraph for the cases where no negotiable transport document is issued and indicated the rights, obligations and liabilities of the carrier and the consignee against each other.