The Liability of the Carrier

54. The liability of the carrier: Article 17.1

Although Article 17 was based on the firm and familiar footing of the CIM,1 the CIM was
largely unknown in England and one senior English judge, coming to the CMR for the first
time, expressed little enthusiasm: So we set out on our journey through articles 17 and
18. It is a journey which we fear may be long and tedious. But the elaborate wording and
the complexity of the articles do not provide a direct or a well-surfaced road to the
destination.2
Judges today are more familiar with the route. Clearly, if the decision concerns liability,
the first step is to apply Article 17.1: The Carrier shall be liable for the total or partial loss
of the goods and for the damage thereto occurring between the time when he take over
the goods and the time of delivery, as well as for any delay in delivery.
In the case of total loss, the claimant proves that the goods were taken over by the
carrier. The carrier, to be exonerated, then proves that the goods were delivered;
otherwise total loss will be presumed.3 In the case of partial loss or damage, it is for the
claimant to prove that it occurred between taking over and delivery. Sometimes the
claimant is able to prove that during that period specific events occurred which caused
loss or damage. More often the proof is only that on arrival at destination there was a
difference between the quantity or condition of the goods taken over,4 the goods which
the carrier promised to deliver, and the quantity or condition of the goods actually
delivered; and, starting from the assumption that the carrier received all of the goods in
good condition,5 the court is invited to infer that the goods suffered loss or damage
between those two points in time and that the carrier is liable for it. In the case of delay,
the claimant proves a difference between the promised time of delivery and the actual
time of delivery.6
If the claimant makes a case of this kind against the carrier, the carrier may seek
exoneration by raising one or more of the defences in Article 17.27 and Article 17.4.8 If
these defences fail, the carrier will seek to limit liability to the amount indicated by Article
23.9
54a. The basis of liability

As in the more familiar case of carriage by sea, if it appears10 that loss, damage
or delay (LDD) has occurred while the carrier was responsible for the goods, there is
a prima facie case of breach of the contract of carriage, breach of a strict contractual duty
to deliver the goods to the right person at the right destination, and in the order and
condition in which they were taken over.11 Like the Hague or Hague-Visby Rules on
carriage by sea, the liability provisions of the CMR are seen in England as terms of a
contract of carriage, with a substratum of bailment.
In Belgium12 and in France,13 the CMR carrier, like any other carrier under a contract of
carriage, has une obligation de rsultat: une obligation de rsultat de bonne fin de

livraison de son chargement,14 which requires delivery of the goods to the right person
and in the appropriate condition.15 If there is LDD, the carriage faces une prsomption de
responsabilit. As in England, the provisions of the CMR are seen as terms of the
contract of carriage.16
To courts in Austria17 and in Germany,18 CMR liability looks like eine
Gefhrdungshaftung, a kind of strict liability, limited in amount and imposed by statute,
for potentially dangerous things such as animals and railway trains.19Although different
from the prsomption de responsabilit of French law, the prsomption is so hard to
rebut that, it has been said,20 the two are almost identical. However, although German
courts speak of the carriers contractual liability under the
CMR,21 Gefhrdungshaftung is associated with risk theory,22 has a tortious flavour, and is
different from the contractual conception of the CMR found in England, and from the
contractual liability that the carrier may have in Austria and Germany under the contract
of carriage, in addition to Gefhrdungshaftung. Indeed, as in English law, in German law
the principal obligation of the carrier is a contractual obligation to deliver the goods to the
right consignee.23 However, whereas the English judge is inclined to see the CMR as an
integral part of the contract of carriage, the German judge perceives a tension between
the CMR, as a special regime, and the ordinary contractual liability
(Vertragsverletzung),24 and is inclined to apply the latter at the expense of the CMR.25
If the special rules for special risks (Article 17.4)26 are put aside, and the basic liability of
Article 17.1, which in England is a strict contractual liability, is qualified by the defences in
Article 17.2, the net result in England is a level of duty which is less than absolutely strict
but greater than that of an ordinary duty of reasonable care.27 The level is set by the key
defence,28 unavoidable circumstances,29 and the net result is that the carrier has a duty
to exercise, what has been called,30 utmost care to perform the contract of carriage.
54b. The scope of liability in time

Although the CMR applies to the contract of carriage, as defined in Article 1.1, the liability
stated by Article 17.1 applies only to loss or damage occurring between taking over and
delivery, a period that may be shorter than the period to which the contract of carriage
relates. The carriers contractual liability for what occurs in the margin before the takeover and after delivery is governed not by the CMR but by the contract and by national
law. However, the importance of the margin depends on the meaning given to taking
over and delivery. If, as suggested above,31 the goods are taken over by the carrier
when they come into the carriers control, and the goods are delivered when control
passes in accordance with the terms of the contract to the consignee, the margin may
well be slight: loss or damage occurring during stages before and after the actual
movement of the goods, such as storage and groupage, are within the scope of the CMR
- if the goods are then in the control of the carrier.
Problems arise in establishing the precise moment at which loss or damage occurs in
relation to the period of control. The carrier may argue that damage perceived during that
period is attributable to an event before the period began,32 while the claimant may argue

that damage first perceived after that period is attributable to events during the period.
Problems like this come to a point in the case of misdelivery.
In Eastern Kayam Carpets v. Eastern United Freight 33 Hirst J decided that misdelivery of
the goods was outside the scope of Article 17.1, because the very earliest moment at
which the loss occurred was immediately after delivery, i.e., when the goods first got into
the hands of the buyers and that there was therefore a gap in the CMR regime to which
the common law applied. Some years later in The Captain Gregos 34 Hirst J reached a
similar decision in relation to carriage by sea, that misdelivery was outside the scope of
the Hague-Visby Rules, but in this case his decision was reversed.35
In The Captain Gregos, Hirst J decided that the scope of the Rules36 was bracketed in
time by the operations of loading and discharge. In Eastern Kayam Carpets, he took a
similar view of taking over and delivery under Article 17.1 of the CMR. In each case,
he decided that delivery, although to the wrong person, marked the end of the carriers
period of responsibility and control. But in the Court of Appeal in The Captain Gregos,
Bingham LJ objected,37 that a bailee does not properly and carefully carry, keep and
care for goods if, whether negligently or intentionally, he fails to discharge them and so
converts them to his own use. What is true of the carrier by sea is no less true of the
carrier by road: he too has a duty to care for the goods.38 It would be odd, surely, if the
carrier could dump the goods on the road, dumping the CMR at the same time, and
retreat behind standard terms of contract.39 It would also be contrary to the clear
implications of the first sentence of Article 16.2,40 whereby carriage does not end unless
and until there is delivery in accordance with the contract of carriage.41 It is submitted,
therefore, that delivery does not occur and liability under Article 17 does not end until the
goods are handed over to the right person; that delivery to the wrong person is not
delivery at all, and the consequences are governed by Article 17 of the CMR.42
A further problem is whether, for the application of Article 17.1, all the loss or damage
must occur between the time of taking over and the time of delivery; or whether, if some
loss or damage (such as decay in perishable goods) occurs before delivery but continues
to develop thereafter, the full and final amount of damage of that kind may be the subject
of a CMR claim. The analogy of insurance cover43 suggests an affirmative answer and,
although CMR decisions on the point differ44 it is submitted that this is also the answer
under the CMR.
In BGH 27.10.78 45 two consignments of dwarf beans sent on the same vehicle to
different consignee/buyers were mixed up and some were delivered to the wrong buyer.
The buyer who received the wrong beans stopped doing business with the
claimant/sender, who claimed compensation from the carrier for loss of business. Noting
that the cause of action was not the loss of the goods but the delivery of the wrong
goods, and that the claimants loss was not a consequence of LDD governed by Article
17, the court applied not the CMR but German law relating to positive
Vertragsverletzung.46 The implication, however, is that, if LDD occurs before delivery, its
consequences may be the subject of a CMR claim, although they were not felt until after
delivery.

In summary, Article 17.1 applies if, between the time of taking over and delivery, the
period of control, the goods suffer any partial loss (below, 55), total loss (below, 56), or
damage (below, 57). Article 17.1 also applies if there is any delayin delivery (below, 58).

55. Partial loss

The CMR draws a distinction between partial loss and total loss. The distinction affects
both the commencement of the limitation period47 and the amount of compensation
recoverable by the claimant from the carrier.48
There is partial loss when goods taken over by the carrier are delivered to the agreed
destination in a quantity, weight or volume less than that taken over.49 The loss is partial
because it is less than total.50 A loss is partial or total not by reference to the quantity that
is (or should be) carried on the vehicle but to the relevant contract of carriage and, if one
has been issued, the consignment note that records it. Hence, in the case of groupage
there may be total loss of part of the load, if that part is the sole subject of a contract of
carriage.51
The CMR also draws a distinction between partial loss and damage. This distinction does
not affect the commencement of the limitation period but does affect the amount of
compensation recoverable by the claimant from the carrier. Whereas partial loss
concerns the weight, quantity or volume of goods, damage concerns the state or
condition of goods.52 The distinction is difficult to draw, if a deterioration in quality, prima
facie an instance of damage, gives rise to a loss in weight or volume.53

56. Total loss

Total loss occurs when none of the goods, which have been taken over by the carrier in
performance of a contract of carriage, have been delivered. In cases of total loss, the
location of the goods is often unknown, however, this is not an essential feature of total
loss under the CMR. For example, if the carrier can provide a map reference for the
location of the goods - at the bottom of a ravine - there may still be total loss. The same
may be true if the goods have been confiscated.54 Nor is it essential that the goods have
been destroyed or even damaged: there may be total loss if the goods have been
mislaid,55 stolen,56 or delivered to the wrong person:
In BGH 27.10.78 57 beans were delivered to the wrong person. Rejecting the view of the
court below, that the goods had not been lost, the court stated that, whereas the location
and possible recovery of the goods might affect the amount of compensation, it did not
prevent the case being one of loss.58 Although the court referred to Article
20.1,59 whereby delay may be treated as total loss, it did so not as the sole basis of its
decision but to clarify the meaning of loss in a case which, even without Article 20.1,
would have been seen by the court as one of loss. Equally, as in BGH 18.5.95,60 goods
which the carrier wrongfully sold by auction were goods that had been delivered to the
wrong person and were lost. In contrast, goods, which it was no longer possible or
appropriate to deliver to the consignee and which were brought back to the sender, were

goods which, in the circumstances, had been handed over to the right person and were
not goods that had been lost: OLG Dsseldorf 16.6.92.61
From cases like that, the step is short to a notion of loss rather like that of frustration of
contract62 at common law: there is total loss if the goods are simply not available to the
consignee as contemplated by the contract of carriage:
In BGH 3.7.74 63 1,000 cartons of deep frozen fish were brought from Cuxhaven to
Boulogne but import permission was refused by the French inspector because about five
per cent of the cartons had begun to defrost. It was suspected, but not established, that
as a result of insufficient refrigeration the entire consignment was unfit for human
consumption. In these circumstances, the load could not remain in Boulogne and was
sent back to Cuxhaven via Rotterdam where, after examination, it was deep frozen
again, and sold to another buyer for the price originally agreed with the buyer in
Boulogne. To assess the amount of compensation, the lower courts treated the case as
one of partial loss, but on appeal the BGH held that it was a case of total loss. The court
accepted the contention of the sender that it was for the entire consignment that import
permission was refused and that it was the entire consignment that was sent back. The
BGH inferred from Article 25.2 of the CMR that damage to part might deprive an entire
load of any value64 and this was what had happened. Moreover, to the sender with a
customer in Boulogne the load was completely useless.65 So the claimant recovered
under Article 23.4 freight for the journey to Boulogne and back, the cost of warehousing
and deep freezing on the return of the fish and the fees of experts who examined it - all
on the basis of total loss. Cf. BGH 6.2.97:66 of a computer system consisting of several
physically separate components, one only was damaged in transit. It was quickly
repaired but until then the system was useless. Nonetheless the carrier was liable under
Article 25.2(b) on the basis of partial loss.
56a. Damage amounting to total loss

As to the meaning of total loss, the English judge may well be aware of the Marine
Insurance Act 1906, in which total loss is of two kinds, actual total loss (ATL) and
constructive total loss (CTL).
As regards CTL, there is CTL under the 1906 Act when the thing is reasonably
abandoned on account of its actual total loss appearing to be unavoidable, or because it
could not be preserved from actual total loss, notably by repairing the thing and
forwarding it to destination, without an expenditure which would exceed its value when
the expenditure has been incurred.67 But, in ICI Fibres v. MAT Transport 68 Staughton J
decided that the common law concept of CTL does not apply to the CMR.69 Indeed, there
is scant sign that the notion of CTL, as such, has been applied to insurance other than
marine insurance,70 still less to other areas of the law.
As regards ATL, in the same case, Staughton J turned to the 1906 Act, in which section
57(1) provides that there is ATL where (a) the thing is destroyed, or (b) the thing is so
damaged as to cease to be a thing of the kind insured, or (c) the insured is irretrievably
deprived thereof. In his judgment total loss in the CMR includes (a) and (c) but, a point

that he did not have to decide, it is very arguable that it does not include (b). The
argument against (b) has succeeded in other cases:
In William Tatton & Co v. Ferrymasters 71 a textile machine worth 32,700 was being
carried from England to Italy, when the trailer on which it stood overturned and the
machine was seriously damaged; it was subsequently worth only9,000 as a source of
spare parts. Browne J stated72 that counsel
for the plaintiffs, says that these goods were damaged to such an extent that they really
had only scrap value left, and accordingly there was what he calls a constructive total
loss. It seems to me that in the ordinary sense in which the words loss and damage are
used in connection with the carriage of goods, this was plainly a case of damage, it is
true very serious damage, and not of loss.
Subsequently, in Worldwide Carriers v. Ardtran International,73 in which steel cord being
sent from France to England was so damaged that it had only scrap value, this statement
was adopted by Parker J.
Compare cases cited in Germany.74 The first is that of fruit, only part of which has been
spoiled, but of which the rest cannot be extracted from the refrigerated vehicle without
being infected and spoiled, too. The second is that of the chess set, two pieces of which
are missing. These are cases of total loss.
Finally, it has been argued that, if there is delivery of the receptacle in which the goods
were contained when taken over, but empty of its contents, the goods have not been
totally lost.75 The force of this argument depends on whether the container is itself part of
the consignment of goods.76
56b. Delay amounting to total loss: Article 20.1

Article 20.1 provides that goods may be treated as lost when they: have not been
delivered within thirty days following the expiry of the agreed time-limit, or if there is no
agreed time-limit, within sixty days from the time when the carrier took over the goods.77
The importance of this provision is that, if delay is treated as total loss, the ceiling on
recoverable loss is not the amount of the carriage charges78 but the (likely greater) value
of the goods.79 Moreover, there is a different commencement date for the period of
limitation.80
The main objective of Article 20.1 is certainty,81 to meet the need of parties in commerce
to know where they stand, while rejecting better late than never as a platitude of the
pub and not an acceptable premise of the production line. The point is poignant in cases
in which goods have been damaged en route and consequently returned to the sender.
By reason of Article 20,82 this is a case of total loss for the commencement date under
Article 32.1(b). From a practical and commercial point of view, goods awaiting repair by
the sender or goods delivered to the wrong person83 may be as lost to the consignee as
goods at the bottom of the North Sea, and to treat the goods as lost under Article 20.1 for
the purpose of liability and compensation seems right. Less obviously, perhaps, the same
may be true for the sender: although the goods have been sent back to the sender, as

regards the movement of the goods to a particular consignee the goods (and the
underlying transaction) may have been totally lost.84
If there is delay to the degree set by Article 20.1, but eventually the goods arrive at
destination, whereas certainty suggests that it is total loss, nonetheless, flexibility and,
perhaps, equity might suggest that the situation reverts to one of delay. Equity might
reason that the purpose of Article 20.1 is to fix a rule when it is unknown whether the
goods will arrive; that the presumption of total loss is not irrebuttable;85 and that therefore
on arrival of the goods, however late, the case reverts to one of delay rather than total
loss.86 However, if, as the law may require,87 the consignee has sought to mitigate loss
by obtaining alternative goods, the consignee should not be compelled to take the
original goods which are late and, perhaps, of no use: this is the clear implication of
Article 20.2-4, whereby the consignee obtains late goods only if they are still
wanted.88 The certainty sought by the draftsman in Article 20.1 is mainly certainty for the
consignee and, it seems, once the case is one of total loss under Article 20.1, that does
not change. This is the view taken by most of the commentators.89

57. Damage
Damage concerns the state or condition of the goods, and must be distinguished from
partial loss,90 which affects the quantity, weight or volume of goods; and perhaps also
from damage so great that the goods have in effect been destroyed and thus totally
lost.91 In the CMR, however, damage is not defined. In the French version, damage is
generally avarie,92 and the ordinary meaning of that word is physical harm, or injury to
an object.93 However, the precise meaning depends on the context in which the word is
used. In Article 17.1 of the CMR, damage means any change in the physical state of the
goods which reduces their value.94 It even includes wear and tear, although at the end of
the day in court this is a kind of damage for which the carrier may be exonerated.95 It also
includes damage that results from delay.96
In OLG Celle 13.1.75 97 deep frozen beans were sent from Italy by refrigerated transport
to a place in Germany, where it was found that a partial thaw had occurred. Although
perfectly edible, the beans could no longer be retailed in the way originally intended, that
is, divided into small frozen packets for purchase by consumers. The court had to decide
on the appropriate date for the commencement of the limitation period, which, according
to Article 32, depends on whether it is a case of damage, total loss or something
else.98 The court noted99 that damage is not defined in the CMR, except that certain
types of damage are enumerated in Article 17.4(d);100 that expert evidence showed that
the fitness of the beans for consumption had not been prejudiced; and that no objection
could be taken to either their bacteriological state or to their taste or smell. Nonetheless,
the court held that the goods had suffered damage: since the beans could now be sold
only in a more limited market, they were less valuable than on consignment and thus
were damaged.
The principle, said the court in that case,101 is that damage is characterised by external
or internal physical deterioration, which results in diminution of value.102 Diminution of

the value of goods without physical deterioration, however, is not damage; were it
otherwise it would be too difficult to distinguish damage from loss of market, for which the
carrier is not liable under the CMR.103 So, in the case of damage to goods, the carrier is
liable for the amount by which the goods have diminished in value,104 and it is this
diminution which in turn characterises damage. However, compensation for damage may
include not only the actual diminution in value but also, it has been said,105 any expense
necessarily incurred to mitigate the diminution in value which the goods would have
suffered, if that expense had not been incurred.

58. Delay not amounting to total loss: Article 19

Article 17.1 does not state that the carrier is liable for delay but for delay in delivery.
Distinguish, therefore, first, the case of the carrier that fails to take over the goods at
all106 and, second, the carrier that delays take-over but, having once taken the goods
over, catches up on lost time, so that the actual duration of carriage, mentioned by
Article 19, does not exceed the time it would be reasonable to allow a diligent
carrier.107 Although these two cases may give rise to the liability of the carrier under
rules of national law,108 they are not cases of delay in the sense of Article 17.1 for
which there is liability under CMR.
Cases of delay for which there may be liability under CMR are, first, delay in delivery
treated as total loss, and governed by Article 20,109 as well as two further cases
of delay governed by Article 19: delivery later than the time agreed and delivery after a
reasonable time for delivery has elapsed.
58a. The agreed time-limit

By Article 19, delay arises when the goods have not been delivered within the agreed
time-limit. It has been held that the agreed time-limit can be proved by any appropriate
means and does not have to be stated in the consignment note;110 it may be found, for
example, in the carriers advertising.111 If a note has been issued, omission of the timelimit agreed from the note is no more than an irregularity in the note, which does not
affect the existence or validity of the contract of carriage112 or by implication the
existence or validity of the limit. This is likely to be the view taken in England, where it is
not essential that contractual terms be recorded in the consignment note.113
The clear inference of Article 19 and Article 20 is that a time-limit has been agreed when
a carrier is required by the contract of carriage to deliver the goods by a stated date or
within a certain time of taking them over.114 A German court has stated115 that under
Article 17.1, just as the carrier might be liable for lateness in delivery, the carrier might
also be liable for loading later than agreed. However, it seems that that is correct, if at all,
if the date for loading was stipulated with a view to the time of delivery and then only for
the purpose of identifying delay in Article 19. If the same ruling were applied to Article
20, the effect would be that Article 20.1, a provision generally regarded as favourable to
the claimant, would become yet more so, as the date of the presumption of total loss
would be brought forward; such a decision would be doubtful.116 Easier to support is the
decision in Aix 20.12.77,117 which did not concern Article 20 and in which the contract

stipulated that a consignment of potatoes from Mauguio to London should reach Dieppe
in time to catch a ferry of specified time and date, and this was treated as an agreed
time-limit.
The usual case is that of goods delivered later than agreed. Trends to want justin-time
delivery (JIT) of, for example, goods of which the consignee wishes to limit stocks and
thus storage and handling costs, raise the question whether the carrier may be liable
under the CMR for tendering delivery too soon. If the agreed time-limit is not simply by
date y but between dates x and y, x appears to be just as much a time-limit as y.
Accordingly, delivery too soon is not delivery within the agreed time-limit, as required by
Article 19. Moreover, the consignee may be entitled to decline delivery until the agreed
time.
If the carrier is outside the time-limit agreed, the carrier is liable, whether aware of the
importance of punctuality or not118 and, it is submitted, even if there was never any
serious possibility that the carrier would be able to deliver on time: the assumption of
such a (strict) duty is, like the condition of the vehicle,119 within the carriers sphere of
risk.120
58b. A reasonable time

By Article 19, delay also arises when, in the absence of an agreed time-limit,121 the
actual duration of the carriage exceeds the time it would be reasonable to allow a
diligent carrier. A reasonable time is not defined, and the English court is likely to fall
back on English common law.122 The only guidance from the CMR is that the court is
directed by Article 19 to have regard to the circumstances of the case, and in particular,
in the case of partial loads, the time required for making up a complete load in the normal
way. In practice, a court will have regard to a number of other factors, including the
nature of the goods,123 the type of vehicle,124 any instructions given to the carrier by the
sender,125 the permitted driving hours, the road conditions and, in an appropriate case,
political instability en route.126 Essentially, the duty of the carrier seems to be a duty to
exercise reasonable endeavours to get the goods to destination promptly.127
For example, the court will take into account a ban, for example, on the movement of
heavy goods vehicles in certain areas on Sundays, but the carrier must do all that can
reasonably be done within the law to overcome obstacles of this kind.128 In a case like
that, the court might hold that the carrier was not guilty of delay, because, considering
the actual road conditions, the carrier had delivered the goods within a reasonable time.
Alternatively, the court might find that the carrier was prima facie liable but exonerated on
the ground that the delay was unavoidable, a defence under Article 17.2.129
The correct analysis depends on how the question of delay arises in such a case. If the
issue arises under Article 19, until the issue has been resolved against the carrier, ex
hypothesi, there has been no breach of contract by the carrier: it is the claimant who
seeks to establish the liability of the carrier for delay under Article 17.1, and it is the
claimant who must prove that the goods have not been delivered within a reasonable
time. If, however, the issue arises under Article 20, because the goods have not arrived

sixty days after having been taken over, prima facie the carrier is liable under Article
17.1, and must plead that the delay was unavoidable under Article 17.2. Whether the
issue arises under Article 19 or Article 20 is important, not only because of the different
onus of proof, but also because the strict nature of the defence under Article 17.2 is such
that the carrier may find it easier to mount a defence under Article 19 than under Article
20.130

59. The consequences of delay

According to Article 17 the carrier shall be liable for any delay in delivery, i.e., for
certain consequences of delay. The consequences may be purely and directly
economic, for example, loss of market, or indirectly economic as the result of physical
deterioration in or damage to the goods themselves.
59a. Economic loss

In case of damage, compensation for damage is limited by Article 25.131 In case

of delay, compensation for damage is limited by Article 23.5.132 The obvious meaning
of damage is physical damage to the goods, damage of the kind referred to in Article
17.1.133 However, if the damage in Article 23.5 were limited to physical damage to
goods, Article 23.5 would be unnecessary in view of Article 25. Article 23.5, it appears,
contemplates a different kind of damage, namely damage to the claimants pocket:
purely economic loss,134 and nothing else.135
The equivalent word in Article 23.5 of the French text, prjudice, is treated in French law
as synonymous with dommage.136 Dommage, a better-known term which is used
elsewhere in the CMR, normally includes both reliance loss and expectation
loss,137 including, therefore, loss of profit, and loss of market. Decisions to that effect can
be found under the CIM138 and under the Hague Rules,139 as well as the CMR. Under the
CMR damage has included a loss of market at the place of destination,140 the senders
liability to his consignee for late delivery,141 and even the costs associated with the
cancellation of a theatrical performance.142

59b. Physical damage associated with delay

In Cass. 5.12.89 143 conifer saplings had been delayed. During the delay the wind rose
and the temperature fell with consequent damage to the goods. For the purpose of
settling the amount of the carriers liability, it was held that this damage was not a case of
damage in case of delay under Article 23.5 but of ordinary damage under Article 25.
That does not appear to have been the intention of the authors of the CMR.144 They
evidently considered that, whereas loss or damage was something the carrier could be
expected to prevent, delay was often difficult to prevent and they provided, therefore, in
Article 23.5 a lower limit on the compensation recoverable for delay than for loss or
damage.145 However, the general view since 1956 has been that, if damage to goods
leads to delay, the case is one of damage146 to be compensated under Article 25;147 and

that, if delay leads to damage, that is also a case of damage to be compensated under
Article 25,148 and not a case of delay for Article 23.5.
59c. Causation and remoteness

In general, the CMR rules out liability for consequential loss, except in certain cases. One
of the cases is delay.149 The damage for which the carrier is liable up to the amount of
carriage charges is loss of bargain150 and as that amount may be high, the question
arises whether a rule of remoteness of damage can be read into Article 23.5. An English
court could, it is submitted, imply a doctrine of remoteness or a requirement of causation
if, as it seems, that is an essential and relevant question on which the CMR is silent.151
No requirement of causation is expressed in Article 17.1: the carrier is liable for LDD
occurring between the time of taking over and of delivery. The German view of Article
17.1 (Gefhrdungshaftung) implies risk152 rather than attribution and fault.153 Moreover, to
the English lawyer the language of Article 17.1 is in this respect reminiscent of insurance
policies that excuse liability for loss occasioned by a stated event or operation, such as
a riot. The effect is that, if there is a mere coincidence in time and space between the
damage claimed and the riot, that (changes the nature of the risk and) is enough to
negate insurer liability, whether the loss was actually caused by the riot or
not.154Likewise, it might be said of Article 17.1, that the coincidence of LDD with the
period of carriage, when the carrier has control of the goods, is enough to place it in the
carriers sphere of risk and to raise a presumption that the carrier is responsible, without
requiring the claimant to undertake the (possibly) difficult task of proving that the LDD
was actually caused by the carrier. On the contrary, the carrier is liable unless the carrier
can prove it was caused by one of the exonerating events stated in Article 17.2 and
Article 17.4. Moreover, if the LDD was partly caused by exonerating events, the carrier is
excused only to the extent that it could be attributed to these events: Article 18.2.
If, as appears, some kind of causal connection is required for liability under Article 17,
CMR does not indicate the rule of causation that applies, perhaps because the domestic
concepts in contracting states are so different that a uniform rule was beyond agreement.
In these circumstances, the courts fall back on rules of national law,155 both as regards
the casual connection between the carriers performance and the delay and between
the delay and its consequences.156
In England, Article 17.1 is seen as part of a contractual framework of liability,157 whereby
to establish that a case falls within Article 17.1 is to establish a prima facie breach of the
carriers contractual obligation to deliver the goods in the same condition and quantity in
which they were taken over. Moreover, the common law instinct is to require a causal
connection between the breach of contract and the loss, in respect of which the claim is
made, and, in particular, to bar recovery, if the loss claimed was one that the claimant
should have mitigated.158 Hence it appears that in cases of delay the CMR carrier will be
liable for loss of market at destination, unless the carrier can prove that it was
unavoidable (or excused on some other ground) and unless the claimant could have
mitigated that loss by obtaining such goods in time elsewhere.

60. Proof of loss or damage: Article 30

To make a claim the claimant must prove that the carrier has broken the contract of
carriage. The claimant must rebut a presumption under Article 30.1 that the carrier did
not break the contract: that, assuming the goods were delivered by the carrier, they were
delivered in the same quantity and condition in which they had been taken over,159 even
if there is no consignment note,160 against which the presumption might be tested.161 To
rebut the presumption and to establish a claim for loss or damage, the claimant must
prove that loss or damage occurred between the time of taking over and the time of
delivery.162 To do this, the claimant brings evidence of the quantity or condition of the
goods at the time of delivery (below, 61), and contrasts it163 with evidence of the quantity
or condition at the time of take-over (above, 25). Unless rebutted by the carrier, the
inference, that any difference (loss or damage) occurred between the two points in
time,164 leads to the conclusion that the carrier is liable under Article 17.165
In Belgium, Putzeys,166 writing in 1981 under the heading Prsomption de faute legard
de ltat de la marchandise, put it neatly thus:
Lobjet du dplacement, cest la marchandise, confie au transporteur dans un tat
determine, qui a t clich la prise en charge par les indications portes sur la lettre
de voiture, et quil sest oblig restituer dans le mme tat la livraison Si cet tat
lors de la livraison ne correspond plus l tat lors de la prise en charge, il y a
prsomption de faute.
In one case, for example, the claimant had to prove, first, that the tomatoes were wet on
delivery and, second, that they were not wet when they were taken over. The second
point turned on the evidential force of the consignment note,167 the first point turned on
compliance with Article 30.
In France, however, the course of a claim is different, because reservations are given an
importance not found elsewhere. If loss or damage is established at the time of delivery,
French courts have seen that alone as sufficient to make a case against the carrier:
without requiring evidence of the quantity or condition of the goods at the time that the
goods were taken over. Moreover, the loss or damage which has that effect is
established merely by making reservations which are no more than allegations.
In Cass. 15.6.86,168 for example, the court rejected the view of the court below, that in
addition to sending reservations to establish the existence of the damage the consignee
had to prove the amount of the damage: the reservations alone were enough to establish
a claim against the carrier: to all extents and purposes a reversal of the onus of
proof.169 This view has been rejected in Belgium170 and Holland,171and is also
unacceptable in England.

61. To rebut the presumption of conforming delivery:

proof of loss or damage
To rebut the presumption,172 that the goods have been delivered as required by the
contract of carriage, the claimant must establish loss or damage to the goods at the time

of delivery by checking them with the carrier or at least sending the carrier
reservations.173 Otherwise Article 30.1 states that his taking delivery of the goods shall be
prima facie evidence that he has received the goods in the condition described in the
consignment note; or, in the absence of a consignment note, that he has received them
in the condition in which the goods were received; and that no loss or damage has
occurred between take-over and delivery, for which the carrier can be held liable under
Article 17.
If the claimant does send reservations, that rebuts the presumption, but reservations
alone do not prove loss or damage or that it occurred during transit. They do not make a
case which the carrier must answer.174 As proof of that, appropriate evidence may
include checking the goods with the carrier; but, whereas other evidence may be rebutted
by the carrier, if the consignee checks the goods with the carrier no rebuttal is allowed by
Article 30.2: the result of the check is conclusive. Hence, the first question to ask in a
particular case is whether, as Article 30.1 puts it, the condition of the goods has been
duly checked by the consignee with the carrier.
61a. Checking the goods

Checking the goods in the presence of an impartial and unimpeachable witness is just
one way of proving the existence of loss or damage;175 but Article 30.1 stipulates
checking with the carrier, a legacy from the CIM assumption that railwaymen were
disinterested parties. Unlike the case of carriage by rail, however, at the end of the road
journey the carrier must usually be represented by the driver176 who, quite naturally, may
be more interested in food and rest than in checking goods.177 Nonetheless, Article 30.5
provides: The carrier and the consignee shall give each other every reasonable facility
for making the requisite investigations and checks. A carrier who, for example, has been
told that the meat is deteriorating, and that the consignee has appointed an expert to
examine the meat with a view to its being sold promptly, cannot drag its feet and then
complain that it was not given a reasonable opportunity to have the meat examined by its
own expert,178 or that, in the absence of due checking, the consignee has failed to send a
reservation. However, although he also spoke of the psychological and economical
preponderance of the consignee, the claims manager for one insurance company once
stated that this rule, which should be an expression of good faith from the general law of
contracts, seems to be for many no more than a virtuous wish, and Article 30.5 remains a
dead letter for lack of sanctions.179 Perhaps the readiness of the French courts to find
a prima facie case against the carrier on the basis of reservations alone180 is intended to
encourage the carrier to co-operate in checking the goods with the consignee.
If checking takes place, Article 30.1 indicates that it must occur at the time of
delivery.181 As the time that ends the carriers liability under Article 17.1, the time of
delivery is a point that must be minutely defined and respected. However, as the time not
by which but at which checking must be done, the time is less a point in time than a
period of time. Were it otherwise, the time of delivery (and thus the chance to do these
things) would cease at the moment when, for example, the trailer is simply unhitched at
the consignees depot, and the consignee might have little or no opportunity to examine

the goods. For the purpose of Article 30.1, a flexible view must be taken of the time of
delivery, and this approach has collateral support in Article 30.4, whereby the date of
delivery and the date of checking do not count in the time in which reservations must be
sent. Nonetheless, the checking must occur soon after the point in time at which control
has passed to the consignee, lest the carrier contend that the loss or damage occurred in
between.182
If the goods are checked and any damage or discrepancy agreed, that check is
conclusive of apparent183 loss or damage against both carrier and consignee. This is the
effect of Article 30.2: When the condition of the goods has been duly checked by the
consignee and the carrier, evidence contradicting the result of this checking shall only be
admissible in the case of loss or damage which is not apparent
If that check does not take place, the consignee must find other proof of the discrepancy
by obtaining, for example, evidence from an official or recognised expert at the place of
delivery.184 If the carrier wants evidence of conforming delivery, the consignment note
may well contain a space for the consignees signature, acknowledging receipt of the
goods as described in the note; and, while a signed receipt is not essential to a
successful defence, it reinforces the presumption185 of delivery in conformity with the
contract.186
61b. Reservations

To defeat the presumption187 that the goods have been delivered in accordance with the
contract of carriage, the consignee must check the goods with the carrier188 or send the
carrier reservations giving a general indication of the loss or damage.189 The English
text of the CMR suggests that general reservations, such as in poor condition, will
suffice.190 However, the French text, rserves indiquant la nature gnrale de la perte
ou de lavarie, suggests that something more informative is required.191 If the consignee
sends reservations that specify damage type A, they do not cover damage type B which,
although apparent in the sense of Article 30.2,192 the consignee did not initially observe
and specify:193 the consignees interests are better served by generality. However, the
carrier wants reservations with enough information to enable investigation and the
preparation of a defence to any claim that might be made. The carriers position was
preferred in OLG Vienna 22.6.89,194 in which a stamp taken over subject to reservation
was held insufficiently informative.195 In contrast, in Cass. 29.4.75 196 goods received in
poor condition was held to be enough. If the purpose of reservations is to alert the
carrier to the necessity of investigation before the trail becomes cold or muddied,
perhaps a general indication of that kind is indeed enough.
The reservations must be sent. Information is sent when it is put into the post or other
means of transmission, so as to be out of the power of the sender to withdraw
it,197 regardless of whether the information reaches the addressee. As for the person who
sends reservations, it matters not whether it is the sender of the goods or the
consignee.198 They must be sent, however, to the carrier and not, for example, to the
sender of the goods199 or to the forwarding agent200 or to the main carrier in respect of a
claim against the sub-carrier.201 The question has been posed whether the driver is

authorised to receive such reservations as the carriers agent. As the requirement of the
CMR is not that the reservations be accepted as such or even that they be received, but
that they be sent to the carrier,202 giving reservations to the driver would be
enough.203 Otherwise in some cases consignees would not discover where to send
reservations in the time allowed.204

61b(i). The form of reservations

As regards apparent loss or damage,205 the French text (adresser) indicates that the
reservations may be sent, not only by letter or telex, but also by word of mouth.206 This
is confirmed as regards apparent loss or damage but denied as regards non-apparent
loss or damage by Article 30.1 in fine, which requires in the latter case but not in the
former, that the reservations referred to shall be made in writing. Subject to this, no
particular form or formula is required for reservations, as long as the import is
clear.207 For example, reservations may be scribbled on the copy of the consignment
note retained by the carrier,208 however, any other written form will suffice.209
As regards writing, required for reservations about non-apparent loss or damage, the
CMR does not define it and the meaning must be found in national law.210 In
England,211 therefore, the court will first seek the meaning of writing in the Interpretation
Act 1978, Schedule 1: Writing includes typing, printing, lithography, photography, and
other methods of representing or reproducing words in visible form. The essential
features are visual display and some kind of note or record. A receiving instrument must
have a memory store or a print-out facility.212 The position is similar, for example, in
Belgium. There writing has been held to include a telex message,213 and hence will also
include any electronic means of communication with print-out facilities, including telefax
and electronic mail.

61b(ii). The time of reservations

The time for reservations depends on whether the loss or damage is apparent. Apparent
loss or damage is not defined in the CMR, but there is case law on the loss or damage
that may be apparent to the carrier when taking over the goods, which applies also to
loss or damage at the time of delivery.214 For example, the common case of missing
contents, the absence of which cannot be established until the parcel or packing is
opened in the usual way, has been treated as a case of non-apparent loss.215 Although
generally what is apparent when the goods are taken over is the same as what is
apparent on delivery, it is arguable that, as the consignee has a right to have the goods
checked, apparent loss or damage includes that which would have been discovered, if
the packaging had been opened. Consignees are unlikely to receive this suggestion with
enthusiasm in view of the practical difficulties of insisting on checking at the time of
delivery.216 Moreover, French courts have held that, if the circumstances are such that to
open and examine the goods would involve the carrier in unacceptable delay, even when
the state of the packing suggests that the goods might be damaged, any damage should
be treated as non-apparent.217

If loss or damage is apparent, the consignee must act not later than the time of
delivery.218 In the case of non-apparent loss or damage, the consignee must act within
seven days of delivery, Sundays and public holidays excepted.219 In both cases, Article
30.4 provides that the date of delivery, or the date of checking, or the date when the
goods were placed at the disposal of the consignee shall not be included.

61b(iii). The absence of reservations

Failure to send reservations or to send them in time does not debar a claim.220 Indeed, to
the English lawyer the requirement of reservations is of limited importance.221 By sending
reservations the consignee has done no more than assert the liability of the carrier and
rebut the prima facie evidence that he has received the goods in the condition described
in the consignment note.222 Whether the consignee has sent reservations or not, the
consignee still has to prove that there has been total or partial loss of the goods [or]
damage thereto occurring between the time when [the carrier] takes over the goods and
the time of delivery, and, in particular, that the assertion contained in any reservations
sent is true:223 the consignee must still prove by whatever means available the reality of
loss or damage at the relevant time.224 To the carrier, however, reservations are useful to
alert the carriers staff to the possibility of a claim.

62. Proof of delay

In a case of delay, the consignee must establish (and contrast) the date on which the
goods should have been delivered,225 and the date of actual delivery, if it has occurred,
by whatever evidence is available.226 In addition, a reservation is required by Article 30.3.
If delay causes damage to the goods, the more general view227 is that the case is not
one of delay regulated by Article 30.3 but one of damage regulated by Article 30.1. In
any event, the consignee should be warned that Article 30.3 says that: No compensation
shall be payable for delay in delivery unless a reservation has been sent in writing228 to
the carrier, within twenty-one days from the time that the goods were placed at the
disposal of the consignee.
As in the case of damage or loss, there is excluded from this time period the date on
which the goods were in fact placed at the consignees disposal. However, in the case
of delay, time runs through Sundays and public holidays and the reservation does not
have to contain a general indication of loss or damage:229 this is because, even after
twenty-one days, the nature of the loss or damage attendant on the delay may still be
unknown to the consignee. Moreover, failure to send the reservation results in more than
a presumption in favour of the carrier: it bars the recovery of compensation.230 If the
consignee is unaware of the name and address of the carrier, because, for example,
there is no consignment note, it has been suggested231 that this requirement will be
relaxed; however, the text of Article 30.3 appears to be uncompromising and, faced with
unambiguous notice periods, English courts tend to apply the words to the letter.232

63. The carriers liability in connection with documents

Apart from LDD to goods, the CMR states the liability of the carrier on two further
grounds in Article 11.3 and Article 12.7. They have given rise to little reported litigation.
Article 11.3 provides that:
The liability of the carrier for the consequences arising from the loss or incorrect use of
the document specified in and accompanying the consignment note or deposited with the
carrier shall be that of an agent provided that the compensation payable by the carrier
shall not exceed that payable in the event of loss of goods.
The basis of the carriers liability in England will thus be the English law of agency with its
requirement that the agent exercise reasonable care. The principal will be the person for
whom the carrier holds the documents, i.e., the person entitled to dispose of the goods at
the relevant time.
Article 12.7 provides that:
A carrier who has not carried out the instructions (of the sender or consignee with regard
to the disposal of the goods) or who has carried them out without requiring the first copy
of the consignment note to be produced, shall be liable to the person entitled to make a
claim for any loss or damage caused thereby.
Again, the basis of liability referred to in this provision appears to lie in national law, the
obvious though not the only such liability in English law being actions in respect of
interference with goods.233

64. Common law and the CMR

No clear line can be drawn between liability at common law and liability under the CMR.
The CMR applies to the international contract of carriage, as defined in Article 1. This
contract contains a number of promises express or implied. The central liability regime of
the CMR is found in Article 17,234 and that regime only makes sense when related to
some of the promises contained in the contract, above all, the promise to carry the goods
to the agreed destination on time and deliver them there in the same order and condition,
in which they were taken over - a central obligation of the carrier which is not stated in
CMR but assumed. So, the CMR regime is best seen as the central but not the sole
component of liability in the contract of carriage, the binding force of which is ultimately
derived from the contract in common law as national law.
The CMR regime is mainly concerned with liability for loss or damage, mostly loss or
damage to the goods, sustained during carriage, as well as liability for delay. When the
CMR alone regulates a question, common law is out of sight but even then, on some
matters, the coverage of the CMR is so thin that it will take its colour from the substratum
of common law beneath, especially on the meaning of certain words.235 On some other
matters, courts have found gaps236 in the CMR regime and these matters are governed
by the express or implied terms of the contract and by common law. Indeed, the CMR
Convention was never intended by those who drafted it to contain an exhaustive system
of regulations for the transport contracts within its scope and it was always presumed

that national laws and regulations are to apply whenever there are no relevant provisions
in the Convention.237
In other CMR states, a line of that kind is also drawn but not always in the same place.
Clear, but restrictive of the CMR, is the view taken in Germany that the CMR is limited to
a (strict) duty of care (Obhutshaftung)238 between taking over and delivery of the goods.
Everything else is contractual and a matter for the substratum of national law governing
breach of contract. This is die positive Vertragshaftung, a device developed in German
law for breaches of contract falling outside specially regulated areas239 such as the CMR,
and applied also in CMR cases in Austria.240
Matters to which national law have been applied are as follows:

(a) The allocation of essential duties, such as the duty of loading (above, 28) and
unloading (above, 36).
(b) The meaning of key words or phrases: goods (above, 11), takes over goods
(above, 27), delivery of goods (above, 37), apparent condition of goods
(above, 25a), inherent vice in goods (below, 72), a reasonable time for their
delivery (above, 60b), reservations in writing (above, 61b), payment of COD
charges (above, 38), ordinary residence and other connecting factors for the
purpose of jurisdiction (above, 46b), and the date on which legal proceedings were
instituted (below, 99).
(c) The meaning of key concepts: title to sue the carrier (above, 40 et seq.), the
appropriate vehicle (above, 30) and route (above, 31) for the journey, causation in
connection with consequential loss (above, 59c), the court within a state which has
jurisdiction under the CMR (above, 46), and the law governing the interpretation of
arbitration clauses (above, 47).
(d) Matters on which the CMR makes express reference to national law, such as
extension of the limitation period (Article 32.3), the procedure for dealing with late but
unclaimed goods (Article 20.4), and the notion of equivalent default (Article 29). In
some cases the CMR indicates the applicable national law: law of the place (Article
20.4), lex fori (Article 29, Article 32.3).
(e) Undertakings stipulated by the CMR itself, for which resort is to national law on
the question of remedies for breach of duty by the carrier, such as241 the duty to
ensure that the consignment note states that the carriage is subject to the
CMR,242 the duty to deal with the goods when the contract cannot be carried
out,243 or when delivery becomes impossible244 and the duty to obey instructions
about the disposal of goods.245 Again, the carriers liability for loss of or incorrect use
of documents,246 and the carriers failure to collect cash on delivery247 are matters to
be taken, as far as possible,248 outside the CMR.
(f) Liability for the expense, not being the loss of, damage or delay to goods covered
by the CMR and Article 17, incurred in consequence of the breach of implied duties,
including, notably, expense incurred by the carrier to prevent or minimise loss or
damage resulting from inadequate loading or stowage by the sender (below, 87).
Thus, were a claimant to have rights to claim money against carriers under UK safety
legislation such rights might be enforced.249

(g) Liability for loss of, damage or delay to goods at any stage while in the custody or
control of the carrier, if the CMR does not have obligatory force but has been
adopted voluntarily in part or in combination with terms proffered by the carrier, to the
extent that the latter override the former and govern the question in issue.
(h) Loss of or damage to goods occurring outside the time/space frame of Article 17
(above, 54b), i.e., before the goods have been taken over (below, 65) or after delivery
(above, 33d(i) and below, 66) or caused before delivery but materialising after
delivery (above, 54b). This includes loss or damage to goods as the result of the
condition of the carriers vehicle or trailer left with the sender for loading and hence
occurring before the goods have been taken over by the carrier and loss or damage
occurring during a pre-loading stage in which the carrier has custody of the goods, if
contrary to the submission above (above, 27), this phase is not governed by the
CMR.
If the carrier arrives to take over the goods so late that the sender, perhaps having
arranged substitute carriage, repudiates the contract of carriage and refuses to hand
over the goods to the carrier, again, taking over has not occurred, and here too the
rights and remedies of the parties inter se will be governed by national
law.250 However, although liability is based in national law, it has been held251 that
the period of limitation for an action to enforce that liability is the period set by Article
32.1 of the CMR.
(i) Finally, fundamentals of the law of contract apply: the courts apply national
law252 to the conclusion of the contract of carriage (below, 202), and attendant
matters such as rescission for misrepresentation (below, 241) and duress
(below, 242) as well as non-enforceability on grounds of the public policy of the lex
fori (below, 243).

65. Non-performance
The liability of the carrier under Article 17 of the CMR arises only in respect of loss or
damage to the goods after the carrier has taken them over.253 If the carrier takes the
goods over late, the carrier takes them over nonetheless, and a consequent claim may
be governed by the CMR.254 But if the carrier fails to collect the goods at all, the goods
have not been taken over and the carrier is liable not under the CMR but under national
law.255
In Lg Bremen 6.5.65 256 the defendant agreed two contracts of carriage from Italy, one to
France and one to Germany, but did not begin to carry out either contract. The court
noted257 that the taking over of the goods or the issue of the consignment note were not
necessary for the realisation of the contract of transport, which had indeed been
concluded in each instance. These contracts were within the general scope of the CMR
which, however, did not govern the carriers liability in cases such as these. As the CMR
did not contain provisions which suggested at all conclusively that the carrier could not
be liable for other kinds of breach of the contract,258 the carrier was liable under national
law.

This point has not come before the courts in England, but it is likely that the decision
would be the same. If so, the carrier could plead exemption clauses going beyond the
exoneration permitted by the CMR, although not without limit. The more drastic effects of
the carriers terms can be neutralised by construction.259
What has been said about non-performance when the carrier fails to collect the goods at
all can also be said about the case in which the carrier collects the goods but the wrong
goods: consignment A instead of consignment B. Less easy is the case of collection of
the right consignment when those goods turn out to be of the wrong quality.
In OLG Munich 3.5.89 260 the carrier promised the consignee, with whom the carriage
was contracted, to check the temperature of the goods (plums) on take-over and, if they
were 5C, to cease loading and obtain instructions from the consignee. In breach of this
promise the carrier loaded plums at a much higher temperature, which on delivery were
totally spoiled. For this the carrier was held liable, not under the CMR but under
(German) national law.
On the basis that the plums were already spoiled and mouldy when taken over, the court
concluded that the damage did not occur between take over and delivery and was
therefore outside the scope of the CMR. This is doubtful. However, the court also took
the view that the contract was a contract for the carriage of suitable goods; and that
those actually received by the carrier were not the contract goods but unsuitable goods,
in other words, rubbish. As the contract goods had not been taken over, the case was
not subject to the CMR but a case of die Vertragsverletzung for (German) national law.

66. Abandonment and delivery short of destination

If the goods have been taken over by the carrier, the CMR governs the carriers liability
for loss or damage occurring between then and delivery. Evidently, loss or damage
occurring after delivery is not governed by the CMR. However, delivery of the goods must
be distinguished from abandonment of the goods which, in turn, must be distinguished
from premature termination of the journey on the instructions of the carrier or as the
consequence of circumstances over which the carrier has no control.
If the carrier obeys lawful instructions from the person entitled to dispose of the
goods,261 instructions to deliver at place A rather than place B, delivery at A is delivery
under Article 17 and loss or damage occurring to the goods after delivery is not governed
by the CMR. Again, if the carrier finds that it is impossible to deliver at designated place
B,262 the carrier is obliged to seek instructions and may be instructed to deliver at place
A; if the carrier does so, the effect is the same. Again, if the carrier finds that it is
impossible to deliver at place B, and before obtaining instructions, the carrier decides in
accordance with the CMR to unload the goods for account of the person entitled to
dispose of them, Article 16.2 states that thereupon carriage shall be deemed to be at an
end. Here, too, the goods have been delivered263 and liability for loss or damage
occurring after unloading is governed not by the CMR but by national law. In contrast, if
the transport is delayed, for example by bad weather or a strike of customs personnel,
and the carrier puts the goods into temporary storage, the goods are in law if not in fact in

movement under the contract of carriage, and the CMR governs liability for loss or
damage.
Cf. Dsseldorf 26.10.78 264 in which the carrier took over the goods, began to move
them, then realised that it had failed to obtain final instructions from the sender, as
required by the contract, and so put the goods into storage. The (open) storage was
inappropriate and the goods were destroyed. This, said the court, was a breach of duty
(Vertragsverletzung), but one closely related to the carriers duty of care under the CMR.
Whether the carriers liability in respect of temporary storage should be based on the
CMR had to be decided from case to case. In the view of the court this case fell outside
the CMR.
In so far as each case must be considered on its merits, an English court would probably
agree. Moreover, an English court might sense that the carriers conduct fell outside the
four corners of the contract.265 However, in its reasoning266 this is one of a number of
decisions in Germany unduly restrictive of the scope of the CMR.
In BGH 9.2.79 267 the defendant carrier contracted with the claimant to carry machines
from Hemer (Holland) to Isfahan (Iran). The carrier sub-contracted the journey but the
subcontractor, having taken over the goods, went into liquidation and the machines got
no further than a trailer park in Rotterdam. The question arose whether the carriers
standard clauses were nullified by Article 41.268 The BGH noted that Article 41 applies
only when the CMR applies and concluded that269 that is not the case when it is a
question of the senders claim for damages for non-fulfilment.270 The CMR governs
liability for delay arising out of performance of the contract, but not a case of nonperformance of the contract such as this,271 to which (German) national law applied.
In so far as this decision turns on the scope of the CMR, it is difficult to support.272 The
CMR applies to loss or damage occurring between the time of taking over the goods and
the time of delivery: Article 17.1. The goods in that case had been taken over but not
delivered. Abandonment is not delivery273 if it occurs on the road outside the consignees
warehouse and still less if it occurs elsewhere. If total loss of goods occurs between
taking over and delivery, the CMR (Article 23.1) applies, without regard to whether the
cause of loss was that goods were mislaid, destroyed,274 stolen or, it is submitted,
abandoned. Why should the CMR apply when goods cannot be delivered because the
goods have been destroyed, but not when goods cannot be delivered because the subcarrier or its vehicle has been destroyed? Little logic is apparent in a line of demarcation
like this, which creates more problems than it solves. The CMR applies to delay but, if
the BGH is right, there is the further question, as difficult as it should be superfluous, of
finding the point at which delay, which is governed by the CMR, becomes non-fulfilment
which is not. It would defeat the purposes of the CMR, both as to uniformity and as to a
reasonable level of liability, if the carrier in difficulties could abandon the goods and with
them (non-fulfil) its contract under the CMR, and run for cover behind its own standard
exemption clauses. The result would be that the more reprehensible the breach, the
easier it would be for the carrier to raise a defence. Surely not.

67. Tort
Although the CMR was not intended to be entirely self-contained or self-sufficient, it was
intended to unify the law, at least as regards what has been described275 as the central
component of the contract of carriage, the liability of the carrier for loss or damage to the
goods during carriage, or for delay in delivery. Other Conventions such as the CIM have
expressly ruled out extra-contractual liability under national law, but the CMR does
not.276 Nonetheless, it was the intention to discourage extra-contractual actions, hereafter
referred to in the English idiom as actions in tort, when the CMR applied. In particular, it
was intended to ensure that claimants could not bypass the CMR regime and liability
limits by such an action: Article 28.

68. Article 28
Article 28 provides:

1. In cases where, under the law applicable loss, damage or delay arising out of

carriage under this Convention gives rise to an extra-contractual claim, the carrier
may avail himself of the provisions of this Convention which exclude his liability or
which fix or limit the compensation due.
In cases where the extra-contractual liability for loss, damage or delay of one of the
persons for whom the carrier is responsible under the terms of article 3 is in issue,
such person may also avail himself of the provisions of this Convention which
exclude the liability of the carrier or which fix or limit the compensation due.

The purpose of Article 28 is to preserve the allocation of responsibility and risk under the
CMR.277 A carrier that is exonerated by the CMR should not have any greater liability on
the same facts in tort. As regards loss, damage ordelay arising out of carriage under this
Convention, a claimant should not be better served in tort than under the CMR.278 A
literal construction of these words would apply CMR exclusions to every aspect of the
carriers liability, including the carriers contractual liability outside the scope of the CMR,
for example, for failure to take over the goods. This would go beyond the purpose of
Article 28, however, with one exception that is not its effect. To avoid this result, loss,
damage or delay arising out of carriage under this Convention should be read as LDD
for which the carrier is liable under the CMR. Hence, it is submitted, an action against the
carrier outside the scope of the CMR, whether based in contract, tort, or statute,279 is not
affected by Article 28.280
This submission is subject to one exception: courts, particularly in Austria and Germany,
have subjected actions based outside the CMR to the limitation period in Article 32, not,
however, as a consequence of Article 28 but to give effect to their interpretation of Article
32.281
As regards the carriers liability within the scope of the CMR, notably Article 17, it has
been suggested282 that, as Article 28 refers only to provisions of the CMR, which
exclude his liability or which fix or limit the compensation due, it does not extend to a

defence based on the special risks in Article 17.4 and the associated shift in the burden
of proof in Article 18.2.283 This suggestion finds some support in the reference, to
provisions which shift the burden of proof, found in Article 29 but not in Article
28. Prima facie the suggestion is correct, for Article 17.4 and Article 18.2 do not exclude
liability but make liability harder to establish, although in practice the effect may be the
same.284However, even on a strict construction of Article 28, there is some common law
authority for treating clauses about the onus of proof as exclusionary. For example, an
exclusion clause has been described285 as one which restricts the rights of a party by
limiting the situations in which a right can be relied upon or the extent to which it can be
enforced. Moreover, the purpose of Article 28, that the CMR regime of liability should not
be bypassed by an action framed in tort, would be seriously undermined286 by the
suggestion that it does not apply to special risks. Thus, it is submitted, Article 17.4 may
be pleaded to defend an action in tort in accordance with Article 28.287
If this is correct, the effect of Article 28 is that a claimant with an action under the CMR
has little to gain by framing an action in tort. Nonetheless, a claimant may wish to sue the
carrier in tort, first, because the complaint concerns a breach of contractual duty outside
the scope of the CMR, and the chance of success or the extent of damages recoverable
is greater in tort than in contract.288 Second, a claimant may wish to sue the carrier in tort
because the claimant has suffered loss as a result of the carriers act or omission, but
has no contract with the carrier or any other basis for a title to sue under the CMR.289 For
example if a shipper has employed a forwarder to arrange the contract in such
circumstances that the forwarder is the sender for the purposes of CMR, the shipper will
have no right of action under the Convention unless the forwarder assigns his rights to
him. Where such an assignment has not taken place or is not legally possible in the
country in question, the only direct right of action which the shipper will have against the
carrier will be in tort or delict 290
The governing law depends on the conflict rules of the forum. Most CMR states look in
some degree to the lex loci delicti commissi.291 The relevant rules of the English law of
tort are discussed below, 229 et seq.
1 In its then current version: E/ECE/TRANS/SC1/116, Art. 18.
2 Ulster-Swift v. Taunton Meat Haulage [1977] 1 Lloyds Rep 346, 351 (CA), per Megaw
LJ.
3 OLG Hamm 2.12.91, TranspR 1992.179. Basedow, Arts 17, 1; Koller, Arts 17, 12;
Herber/Piper, Arts 17, 168.
4 Below, 60 et seq.
5 4a. E.g. Cass. It. 2.10.2003 Idit no. 40950 Dir. Mar. 2005, 864.
6 Below, 58.
7 Cass. com. 18.1.2000, BTL 2000, 74. Below, 69 et seq.

8 Cass.Belge 9.12.1999 ULR 2000. 851; Rouen 28.10.1999, Idit no. 5970 Below, 76 et
seq.
9 Below, paras. 93 et seq.
10 But to make it appear so, the claimant must rebut a presumption established by Art.
30.1 that the goods have been delivered in accordance with the contract of carriage: see
below, 61 et seq.
11 Idem as regards carriage by sea under the Hague Rules, for example, Albacora
SRL v. Westcott & Laurance Line [1965] 2 Lloyds Rep 37, 46 (Ct Sess), per Lord
Cameron.
12 See cases cited by Buyl, Theunis, p. 276; Libouton, Theunis, p. 79: Putzeys, paras.
377, 652; Van Ryn (1966) 1 ETL 638, 655.
13 Nancy 20.2.81, BT 1981.330; Paris 10.2.84, BT 1984.558. Gottrau, BT 1986.706.
Rodire, CMR para. 62.
14 TC Paris 9.6.83, BT 1983.457, 459.
15 Rodire, para. 527, pointing, as regards French domestic law, to Art. 1784 c.civ.: Ils
sont responsables de la perte ou des avaries des choses qui leur sont confies, moins
quiils ne prouvent quelles ont t perdues ou avaries par cas fortuit ou force majeure.
16 For example, Rodire (1971) 6 ETL 2, 4-5 as regards Arts 14-16: the obligations
attributed to a contract by law (or by international convention) are not legal but
contractual if it is impossible to carry them out, they will therefore be open to censure
according to the rules of contractual responsibility.
17 E.g., OGH 27.8.81, Greiter, 97, 101. But cf. OGH 17.3.98, TranspR 1998.361.
18 E.g., BGH 21.12.66, NJW 1967.499, 1967 ULC 283, (1969) 4 ETL 88; OLG Hamm
11.3.76, NJW 1976.2077; OLG Frankfurt 25.10.77, VersR 1978.535.
19 From the first half of the nineteenth century there was liability, if the loss or damage
was caused through the operation of the railway, i.e., if it was caused or contributed to
by sudden braking, collapse of the track, sparks from the trains, signal failure, or other
incidents of the technical operation of running a railway. There was exoneration only in
case of hhere Gewalt: external and elemental forces of nature or the conduct of third
parties, the effects of which could not have been prevented even by the most extreme
precautions: Zweigert and Ktz, vol. II, pp. 347-8. For a select bibliography see
Markesinis, The German Law of Torts (3rd edn, Oxford, 1994), p. 692, and Zweigert and
Ktz, vol. II, pp. 340 and 353. Basedow (Arts 17, 1) describes CMR liability
as Obhutshaftung between take over and delivery. Idem OGH. 17.3.98,
TranspR 1998.361. According to Basedow this liability, subject to the various defences, is
strict. However, whether liability is properly described as presumed or strict has been
debated in Germany: Basedow, Arts 17, 3.
20 Zweigert and Ktz, vol. II, p. 345.

21 For example, BGH 27.10.78, NJW 1979.2473, 2474.

22 In view of the chance that harm will occur: Honor, Encyclopedia of Comparative Law,
vol. XI, Chap. 7, paras. 94 et seq.; Lawson and Markesinis, Tortious Liability for
Unintentional Harm in the Common Law and the Civil Law, vol. I, pp. 123 et seq.
23 BGH 27.10.78, NJW 1979.2473. Some commentators, too, take a more nuanced
view: Herber/Piper Vor, Arts 17, 3; Koller, Arts 17, 13; Thume, Arts 17, 3 et seq. and, in
particular, 9 et seq.
24 Piper, VersR 1988.201, 208. Together with the tradition, for example, in the case of
people or things damaged while being carried by rail, of a claim both under the special
statute (Gefhrdungshaftung) and under the general civil law: Lawson and Markesinis, p.
159. The distinction is also marked in many standard contracts of liability insurance,
whereby CMR liability is insured separately from other kinds of liability which the carrier
may incur under the contract of carriage: Verheyen, Theunis, p. 263.
25 Notably in the case of abandonment of the transport. See below, 66.
26 For these rules, see below, Chap. 7.
27 So, also, the level in Belgium and France is not the prsomption de faute but
the prsomption de responsabilit: Rennes 19.11.1930, Dor Sup 9.18; Colmar 11.1.72,
BT 1972.90, 1973 ULC 276; Brussels 12.12.77, 1978 ULR I 376, 379; Paris 4.7.84,
BT 1985.158. Buyl, Theunis, p. 276; Van Ryn (1966) 1 ETL 638, 659. In Germany, it has
been described as in die Gruppe der Haftungen fr vermutetes Verschulden allerdings
mit verschrften Sorgfaltsanforderungen: in this sense OGH 15.12.81, Greiter, 119; OGH
10.7.91, TranspR 1991.412 and OGH 12.11.96, TranspR 1997.104. Cf. BGH 28.2.75,
NJW 1975.1957, 1975 ULR II 370. In Sweden Ramberg (1974) 9 ETL 3, 14 refers to a
synthesis of international opinion in favour of an alternative placed between the principle
of exculpation and the strict liability principle. As regards carriage law in Sweden, see H.
Tiberg and J. Schelin, Maritime and Transport Law (2nd edn, Stockholm 2009).
28 Gefhrdungshaftung, but qualified by the possibility of a successful defence by
reference to unavoidable circumstances (Art. 17.2). That the latter and the liability of the
carrier should be related to Gefhrdungshaftung has been criticised by Basedow, Arts
17, 41.
29 Below, 76.
30 This description is taken from the judgment of Mustill J in the Silber case, below, 75a.
31 At 27 and 37.
32 Below, 74.
33 6 December 1983, unreported.
34 Cie Portorafti Commerciale SA v. Ultramar Panama Inc [1989] 2 All ER 54;
Clarke [1989] LMCLQ 394.

35 [1990] 1 Lloyds Rep 310; Clarke [1990] LMCLQ 314.

36 Under the Rules, Art. II, the responsibilities and liabilities of the carrier are applied in
relation to the loading and discharge of goods. By contrast, for the application of Art.
17 the loss or damage must occur between taking over and delivery.
37 At p. 315.
38 The duty has been implied: below, 79.
39 In this sense Cambrai 12.9.78, BT 1978.445. See also OGH 27.8.81, Greiter, 97, in
which the load was left but not immediately abandoned in the desert of Yemen: the issue
of liability for loss of the goods and for the cost of a (negative) salvage report was
governed by the CMR.
40 That provision authorises the carrier, in cases in which delivery in accordance with the
contract has been prevented, to unload the goods for account of the person entitled to
dispose of them, and continues that thereupon the carriage shall be deemed to be at an
end. On this provision, see above, 33c(ii) and 37d.
41 Thus, in OLG Dsseldorf 23.11.89, TranspR 1990.63, goods were mislaid by the
carrier and found a year later. As they had not been delivered, the carriers liability for
deterioration in their condition was governed by the CMR.
42 Even on the narrow construction of Art. 17.1, in Eastern Kayam Carpets (above) the
delivery does not occur until the act of delivery is complete, and it is not complete until
the goods are in the hands of the (wrong) person or placed at that persons disposition:
see above, 37. By this time the claimant, the rightful consignee, has suffered (at least
some) loss: economic loss or, as seems to be the sense of Art. 17.1, loss of the goods
themselves. On the meaning of loss, see below, 56.
43 Clarke, Insurance, para. 18-1B.
44 In OGH 27.8.81, Greiter, 97, the Art. 23 limit was applied not only to loss of goods
prior to delivery, but also to the subsequent cost of assessing whether salvage was
possible. But cf. OLG Hamm 11.3.76, NJW 1976.2077, above33d(i), where the whole
issue is discussed at greater length.
45 NJW 1979.2473.
46 At p. 2474. However, on the question of limitation the court applied Art. 32 of the
CMR, as this provision was not limited in its application to loss, etc., before delivery, but
applied to actions arising out of CMR carriage: see above,43a.
47 Art. 32.1: above, 44.
48 Arts 23 et seq.: below, 95 et seq.
49 Rodire, para. 502; and BT 1972.240.
50 Below, 56.

51 Brussels 16.11.77 (1980) 15 ETL 319. Basedow, Arts 17, 10; Herber/Piper, Arts 17, 4;
cf. Thume, Arts 17, 72.
52 Below, 57.
53 Haak, p. 200. In particular, it may be difficult to distinguish a case of desiccation within
Art. 17.4(d): Supreme Court Hungary 32 989/1974, 1976 ULR II 391.
54 Thume, Arts 17, 67.
55 Rodire, para. 501. This kind of loss has been discussed in insurance cases.
In Holmes v. Payne [1930] 2 KB 301, 310, Roche J said: Uncertainty as to recovery of
the thing insured is, in my opinion, in non-marine matters the main consideration on the
question of loss. In this connection it is, of course, true that a thing may be mislaid and
yet not lost, but, in my opinion, if a thing has been mislaid and is missing or has
disappeared and a reasonable time has elapsed to allow of diligent search and of
recovery and such diligent search has been made and has been fruitless, then the thing
may properly be said to be lost. In Webster v. GAFLAC [1953] 1 QB 520, 532, Parker J
said: The test is whether, after all reasonable steps to recover a chattel have been taken
by the assured, recovery is uncertain. However, if the goods are later found, the CMR
claimant may be entitled to treat the case as one of delay: OLG Dsseldorf 23.11.89,
TranspR 1990.63.
56 Cf. HR 4.10.02, (2004) 39 ETL 669.
57 NJW 1979.2473 (also discussed above, 54b). Also in this sense BGH 13.7.79,
VersR 1979.1154. Basedow, Arts 17, 9; Herber, Arts 17, 3; Thume, Arts 17, 68.
58 Cf. OLG Frankfurt 30.3.77, VersR 1978.169 in which the court held that delivery to the
wrong person could amount to loss, if they could not be recovered.
59 Below, 56b.
60 TranspR 1995.383.
61 TranspR 1993.17.
62 See Treitel, 19-082 ff.
63 1974 ULR II 216. Also the case where goods are wrongfully retained by a subcarrier: Antwerp 31.1.2000, Idit Fiche 45/95.
64 At p. 218.
65 At p. 220. But cf. Putzeys, para. 693: if the goods are returned to the sender,
whatever the cause, there is no total loss.
66 ULR 1999.834, TranspR 1997.335.
67 S. 60.
68 [1987] 1 Lloyds Rep 354, 358. With respect, this seems right. First, provisions such
as Art. 25 suggests that damage and total loss are mutually exclusive ideas covering

the entire field of harm so that there is no gap to be filled by national rules of law:
Hardingham [1979] LMCLQ 362, 363. Second, a concept as complicated as CTL cannot
reasonably be implied into the CMR on the ground of interpreting the idea of total loss,
and, as Staughton J observed (pp. 358-9), it may not be assumed that the authors of the
CMR had this concept in mind.
69 Also in this sense: Demuth, TranspR 1996.257; Glass and Cashmore, para. 3.65;
Putzeys, para. 690.
70 Clarke, Insurance, para. 16-2A2. Cf. Lg Hamburg 3.5.00, TranspR 2001.302.
71 [1974] 1 Lloyds Rep 203.
72 Ibid. pp. 205-06. Also in this sense: Haak, p. 200 and Putzeys, para. 692. Cf. Paris
18.9.91, BTL. 1991.655; Pesce, p. 196.
73 [1983] 1 Lloyds Rep 61, 64. Cf. Thermo Engineers v. Ferrymasters [1981] 1 Lloyds
Rep 200, 206, in which, having held that the CMR did not apply, Neill J said that, if he
were wrong about that, the plaintiff should recover in full in respect of a machine having
only scrap value. He said this without reference to Art. 25.1 (which concerns damage as
opposed to loss) or to the William Tatton case (above). In ICI Fibres v. MAT
Transport [1987] 1 Lloyds Rep 354, 359 Staughton J expressed a preference for the
view taken by Browne and Parker JJ. But cf. OLG Hamm 6.2.97, TranspR 1998.34:
worthless foodstuff was a total loss.
74 Thume, Arts 17, 72. Also in this sense: Herber/Piper, Arts 17, 7.
75 Putzeys, para. 690; Rodire, para. 501.
76 Above, 11.
77 In modern conditions sixty days from the time of taking over is thought to be a short
period, for example, for a trip to the Middle East. Parties would be well advised to agree a
(longer) limit: Donald, paras. 238 et seq. The position is not improved by the inclusion of
Sundays and holidays, which are excluded from, e.g., Art. 30, but not Art. 20: OLG
Dsseldorf 25.9.97, TranspR 1999.159.
78 Art. 23.5: below, 97c.
79 Art. 23.1: below, 94. The point is often disputed, e.g., HR 04/10/2002 Idit no. 40960.
80 Art. 32.1: above, 44.
81 OLG Dsseldorf 23.11.89, TranspR 1990.63, 66. Basedow, Arts 20, 1;
Hardingham [1979] LMCLQ 193, 194. Total ignorance about what has occurred or where
the goods might be amounts to faute lourde on the part of the carrier:Colmar, 7.11.12, Idit
N23915. As to faute lourde see below 102c.
82 This conclusion has been criticised: see above, 44a.
83 BGH 27.10.78, NJW 1979.2473, above, 56. This point is generally accepted, e.g.,
Ukraine Court of Appeal 29/01/2007 Idit no. 41456.

84 See BGH 3.7.74, above, 56, in which the goods were held to be lost, but without
reference to Art. 20.1.
85 In this sense OLG Frankfurt 20.1.81, VersR 1981.1131, as reported by Haak, p. 202,
who also supports that view, as does Pesce, p. 197. However, most commentators
oppose it: Basedow, Arts 20, 4; Herber/Piper, Arts 20, 3; HM, para 7.12; Koller, Arts 20,
1; Thume, Arts 20, 4.
86 Loewe, para. 177.
87 Below, 59a.
88 Below, 94b.
89 Above. Cf.: BGH 25.10.01 (2002) 37 ETL 353, reported in English in ULR 2004.678
and Idit no. 40351: A charitable organisation (sender) contracted with a German
forwarder to transport medical equipment, intended as a donation, to a consignee in
Bosnia. The forwarder sub-contracted with the defendant carrier, which was unable to
deliver the goods to the consignee within sixty days, the goods having been lost. The
forwarders insurer paid compensation to the sender. Just after that, however, the goods
were found in a customs warehouse in Slovenia and delivered to the consignee in
Bosnia. The insurer brought an action for damages against the carrier for the amount
paid to the sender. Article 20(1) applied and compensation was calculated on the basis of
the current value of the goods (Article 23 CMR), even though the goods ultimately
reached the consignee and the plaintiffs intended to donate them to the consignee.
90 Above, 55. Cf. the different and less categorical rule in the Warsaw Convention: No
doubt in an English context loss is one thing, damage another - Fothergill v. Monarch
Airlines Ltd [1981] AC 251, 273, per Lord Wilberforce; Clarke, Air, Arts 18, 4; and more
recently in the Montreal Convention 1999; Clarke & Yates paras 3.588 ff.
91 In so far as this amounts to constructive total loss, this is doubtful: see above, 56a.
92 This translation has also given difficulty under the Warsaw Convention: Clarke, Air,
Arts 18, 5.
93 Fothergill, above, at 290, per Lord Scarman. No doubt he had followed the advice of
his brethren in that case and looked at the dictionary.
94 OGH 31.3.82, TranspR 84.196; Paris 2.10.03, BTL 2003.814.
95 In the case of sensitive goods: below, 89.
96 Below, 59b.
97 (1975) 10 ETL 410. Also in this sense: OLG Hamburg 30.8.89, VersR 1989.1214.
Cf. OLG Celle 20.06.02. TranspR 2004.122.
98 See above, 44.
99 At 415.

100 See below, 89.

101 At p. 415. Idem in Denmark: Erik v. Borge Landhoff, Ufr 1971.183, as reported by
Sevon 1971 ULC 291, 303 (discoloured turkeys, edible, but not saleable at the full price).
Austria: OGH 31.3.82, TranspR 1984.196, Greiter, 137, 141; OLG Vienna 23.2.89,
TranspR 1990.156. Herber/Piper, Arts 17, 5; Pesce, p. 197; Thume, Arts 17, 73 et seq.
Cf. Koller, Arts 17, 2, who assumes that the meaning of damage, like that of loss, is to be
sought in national law. However, others agree: Herber/Piper, loc. cit., and, with
reservations, Basedow, Arts 17, 11.
102 Basedow, Arts 17, 11; Thume, TranspR 1992.1.
103 See below, 94. See also De la Motte, VersR. 1988.317. If, however, something has
been contaminated but can be decontaminated, it is damaged even though, in the end,
the only loss to the owner is the cost of decontamination:The Orjula [1995] 2 Lloyds Rep
395. Also in this sense: Herber/Piper, Arts 17, 6; Thume, Arts 17, 78.
104 Art. 25.1, discussed below, 94a.
105 OLG Vienna 23.2.89, TranspR 1990.156.
106 Milan 11.7.75, 1977 1 ULR 336. This conclusion can be inferred from Art. 19 and the
reference, in the absence of an agreed time-limit, to the actual duration of the carriage.
107 Cf. OLG Hamm 14.11.85, below, 58a.
108 As regards failure to take over the goods, i.e. non-performance, see below, 65. In
such cases there is no delay during transit: OLG Hamm 20.3.97, TranspR 1998.297.
109 Above, 56b.
110 OLG Hamm 14.11.85, TranspR 1986.77; OLG Kln 7.12.93,
TranspR 1994.197; OLG Dsseldorf 7.3.2007 Idit no. 41224 TranspR 2007.195.
Basedow, Arts 19, 6; Herber/Piper, Arts 19, 4; Koller, Arts 19, 4; Putzeys, para. 72;
Thume, Arts 19, 11, noting also some decisions to the contrary. In Belgium it has been
held that in the absense of specific agreement about the time for delivery there can be no
liability for delay: Antwerp 15.12.1998, JPA 1999, 126, Idit no. 40798.
111 Paris 25.3.94, BTL 1994.389: an express consignment of fashion wear, which took
several weeks, was treated as such.
112 Art. 4: above, 22.
113 Below, 202.
114 Clearly, prompt delivery or delivery as soon as possible are not of this kind:
Thume, Arts 19, 12. As regards the interpretation of what has been agreed, see 225c.
115 OLG Hamm 14.11.85, TranspR 1986.77, 79. The court was influenced by national
law.
116 Also in this sense HM, para 7.6.

117 BT 1978.245, 1979 ULR I 299.

118 A defence, that the carrier had not been told that timeous delivery was important,
was rejected in Bordeaux 9.2.72, BT 1972.114, 1974 ULR I 341.
119 Below, 75f.
120 Semble also in this general sense: Koller, Arts 19, 4 and Thume, RIW 1992.966, 967
and Thume, Arts 19, 14. Cf. the view (Thume, Arts 19, 14) that this issue is not governed
by the CMR but by national law. If so, national law may treat the carriers impossible
promise as a nullity. This may be the result under German law: Basedow, Arts 19, 7; and
also under English law: see The Fanti [1987] 2 Lloyds Rep 299, 306, per Staughton J,
citing Halsburys Laws of England(4th edn, London, 1980), vol. 25, para. 437.
121 Above, 58a.
122 Below, 225c.
123 Such as size: Douai 19.1.2012 Idit no. 41491 BTL 2012.129. Evidently more speed
is required in the case of perishable goods: Herber/Piper, Arts 19, 15. Concerning
whether the carrier must employ two drivers to enable transit without periods of rest, and
thus observe regulations on drivers hours, see Thume, Arts 19, 18.
124 Assuming that the type used is appropriate. On this see above, 30.
125 Putzeys, para. 706.
126 Trento 21.5.98 (1999) 32 ETL 280.
127 The German translation uses a phrase from national law: ein vernnftiger,
sorgfltiger Frachtfhrer: Herber/Piper, Arts 19, 14; Koller, Arts 19, 5; Thume, Arts 19,
15. They also conclude (e.g., Thume, Arts 19, 17), inter alia, from the use of the present
tense in Art. 19, that what is reasonable is to be assessed ex ante on the basis of
information available at the time that the contract is concluded: sed quaere.
128 Venice 31.10.74 (1975) 10 ETL 242. Herber/Piper, Arts 19, 16.
129 On the ground of delay through circumstances which the carrier could not avoid
and the consequences of which he was unable to prevent. On this defence, see
below, 78.
130 Hardingham [1979] LMCLQ 193, 194.
131 Below, 93.
132 Below, 96.
133 Above, 57.
134 Also in this sense: Haak, p. 229; Putzeys, para. 885bis.
135 Below, 59b.

136 Marty et Raynaud, Droit Civil, vol. II, para. 375; Carbonnier, Droit Civil, vol. IV, para.
71.
137 French Civil Code, art. 1149.
138 BGH 14.4.76 (1976) 11 ETL 787.
139 G H Renton & Co v. Palmyra Trading Corp of Panama [1957] AC 149; Adamastos
Shipping Co v. Anglo-Saxon Petroleum Co [1959] AC 133; Marifortuna Nav
SA v. Government of Ceylon [1970] 1 Lloyds Rep 247, 252, per Mocatta J (concerning
expenses resulting from delay). Tetley, p. 309.
140 E.g., Paris 2.4.71, BT 1971.155, 1971 ULC 154; Paris 29.10.80, BT 1981.256,
1981 ULR I 267; OGH 31.3.82, TranspR 1984.196, Greiter, 137; and OLG Hamm
14.11.85, TranspR 1986.77. Cf. the Warsaw Convention: Clarke, Air, Arts 18, 5.
141 E.g., Cass. 26.6.84, BT 1984.610.
142 As a result of delay in the carriage of theatrical properties: Paris 18.10.73,
BT 1973.488, 1976 ULR I 242.
143 BT 1990.310. Also in this sense OGH 31.3.82, TranspR 1984.196, Greiter, 137, 1412; Aix 14.1.92, BTL 1992.809; BGH 15.10.92, TranspR 1993.137. Basedow, Arts 23, 44;
Glckner, Theunis, p. 103; Herber/Piper, Arts 23, 38; Koller, Arts 23, 17; Putzeys, para.
885; Thume, Arts 23, 45 et seq. Cf. HM, 9.44.
144 Nickel-Lanz, paras. 112 and 167, by reference to the legislative history. Also in this
sense: Putzeys, para. 700.
145 Nickel-Lanz, para. 111.
146 OGH 15.2.79, SZ 52/19, 1979 ULR II 229, 231, Greiter, 76, 78, refusing a
counterclaim in respect of loss of trading profits that would have been made if the
machine carried had not been damaged. Idem. as regards consequential
expense: Vienna 23.2.89, TranspR 1990.156.
147 Below, 93.
148 For an outline of doctrinal differences, see Haak, p. 229.
149 The other cases are set out below, 94.
150 Above, 59a.
151 Confirmed by Loewe, para. 203.
152 See above, 54.
153 However, German law does require a causal connection of a kind. Loss, etc., must
be caused through the operation of carriage by road, i.e., that it was caused or
contributed to by some aspect of the operation: Zweigert and Ktz, p. 347. Idem.: Thume,
Arts 19, 27. Hence there is a causal requirement, albeit a tenuous one and one not with

the carriers fault but with the carriers transport operation. See BGH 15.12.05,
TranspR 2006.210.
154 Clarke, Insurance, para. 25-9C1. E.g., Cooper v. General Accident Fire & Life
Assurance Co (1923) 128 LT 481 (HL).
155 For a survey see Honor, Encyclopedia of Comparative Law, vol. XI, Chap. 7, paras.
44 et seq. E.g., the German courts apply to CMR cases the theory of the adequate
cause: BGH 27.6.85 (1986) 21 ETL 102, 108. On this theory, see Honor (above), paras.
80 et seq. In France, the carrier is liable under art. 1151 c. civ. for damage which is une
suite immdiate et directe of non-performance of the contract of carriage, and this would
normally include loss of market at the place of delivery: Brunat, BT 1982.202. On this
theory, see Honor (above), paras. 71 et seq.
156 E.g., in Cass. 26.6.84, BT 1984.610, the Court of Cassation censured the court
below because it had not established a causal connection between the
carriers faute (delay) and the loss (liability of the consignee) suffered by the
claimant. Idem. in Germany: BGH 27.6.85 (1986) 21 ETL 102; BGH 14.7.93,
TranspR 1993.426.
157 Above, 54.
158 See below, 246.
159 TC Brussels 19.3.74 (1974) 9 ETL 773, 775; Brussels 19.10.72 (1974) 9 ETL 608,
614.
160 Limoges 2.6.67, BT 1967.273.
161 In so far as Art. 30 benefits the carrier, it is a benefit which the carrier does not lose
by wilful misconduct or equivalent default. This penalty is found in Art. 32 for that
provision alone, and in Art. 29 for the provisions of this chapter, hence Arts 17 to 29. By
clear implication Art. 30 is unaffected.
162 BGH 8.6.88 (1988) 23 ETL 705.
163 Rodire, para. 503.
164 City Vintages v. SCAC Transport International (High Court, 1.12.87). Buyl, Theunis,
p. 277.
165 Above, 54.
166 Paras. 658-9.
167 Thus, if the packing is such that wetness, if present when the tomatoes were taken
over, would have been apparent to the carrier, a lack of reservations in the note about
wetness, means that it can be inferred that they were not wet at that time. Otherwise, the
carrier is entitled to say that they might have been wet before they were taken over, and
the claimant has yet to make a case under Art. 17.
168 BT 1986.542.

169 If the consignee sends reservations in accordance with Article 30.1, the loss or
damage is deemed to have occurred during the transport: Nossovitch BT 1982.544,
citing, inter alia, Cass. 2.2.82, BT 1982.152, (1983) 18 ETL 47. See also Paris 2.12.81,
BT 1982.73; Cass. 15.2.82 (1983) 18 ETL 24; Lyon 3.8.86, BT 1987.256 and Cass.
9.1.90, BT 1990.492. But now cf. Cass. 13.12.94 (1995) 30 ETL 541. Although describing
such decisions as anomalous, French commentators (e.g., Brunat, BT 1982.146) seek to
justify them as a consequence of a difference in wording between Article 30 of the CMR
and the corresponding provision of the CIM. A similar rule is applied in France to carriage
by sea, see Tetley, p. 294.
170 Putzeys, para. 658 (quoted above).
171 Haak, p. 194.
172 See above, 60.
173 Not both: Lige 6.5.70 (1970) 5 ETL 717, 722.
174 Cf. the French decisions discussed above, 60.
175 In French courts evidence is admitted par tous les moyens (Cass. 15.5.84,
BT 1984.526) notably une constatation contradictoire. If loss or damage is disputed,
the constatation is judiciaire, if undisputed, it is aimable.
176 The driver is considered to have authority to represent the carrier in this regard:
Haak, p. 193; Rodire, BT 1978.73.
177 As, for example, in Paris 23.3.79, JCP 1980.19372.
178 Antwerp 21.6.78 (1978) 13 ETL 601.
179 Buyl, Theunis, p. 284. In England there is, of course, no general principle of good
faith of the kind found, for example, in Germany. However, a similar result might be
achieved in the present case by robust application of an implied term of the kind upheld
in Southern Foundries v. Shirlaw [1940] AC 701.
180 Above, 60.
181 Above, 37.
182 E.g., OLG Vienna 22.6.89, TranspR 1990.158, in which, however, the carriers
contention failed.
183 As to apparent, see above, 25a and below, 61b. In the case of loss or damage that
was not apparent in the check but is discovered later, the consignee is expected to send
written reservations within seven days of delivery: see below, 61b.
184 Toulouse 26.3.69 (1971) 4 ETL 131, 136; Brussels 17.6.71 (1971) 6 ETL 825: in
these cases such evidence was accepted to establish the carriers breach of contract
(and rebut the presumption that the carrier had performed the contract properly), even
though neither the reservations nor the joint checking, suggested by Art. 30.1, had
occurred. Cf. Brussels 19.10.72 (1974) 9 ETL 608, 614.

185 Above, 60.

186 As no particular form is required for reservations under Art. 30.1, however, signature
of the receipt by the consignee does not deprive oral reservations about damage of their
effect: Lige 6.5.70 (1970) 6 ETL 716, 722. Moreover, it is not unknown for the
consignees signature to have been forged.
187 Above, 60.
188 Above, 61a.
189 187a. Cass. com. 27.9.2011 BTL 2011, 587, Idit no. 23648; Mons 04.03.2002 Idit no.
40580.
190 Glass and Cashmore, para. 3.69. See also above, 45b(i), as regards claims, for
which a general intimation of intention to hold the carrier liable is sufficient.
191 Antwerp 15.11.78 (1979) 14 ETL 660. Loewe, Theunis, p. 146.
192 See above, 61a.
193 Putzeys, para. 571.
194 TranspR 1990.158.
195 Also in this sense: Basedow, Arts 30, 9; Nickel-Lanz, para. 117; Putzeys, paras. 5535; Rodire (1971) 6 ETL 306, 322; OLG Hamburg 27.1.04, TranspR 2004.215.
196 1977 ULR I 334. Also, all the tomatoes wet and rotting was a sufficient reservation
in Cass. 15.7.86, BT 1986.542. But cf. Douai 16.1.97, TranspR 1997.103.
197 This is the rule of English common law: Re London and Northern Bank, ex p.
Jones [1900] 1 Ch 220; today too: Treitel 2-030. A similar rule is found in Belgium:
Putzeys, para. 549. The CMR does not define sending.
198 Limoges 7.11.77, BT 1977.537, 538.
199 Ghent 17.11.67 (1969) 4 ETL 145.
200 Loewe, Theunis, p. 148.
201 Loewe, loc. cit.
202 Putzeys, para. 552.
203 Also in this sense: Herber/Piper, Arts 30, 11-12; Koller, Arts 30, 5; Thume, Arts 30,
18.
204 Basedow, Arts 30, 11.
205 As to apparent, see above, 25a.
206 Loewe, Theunis, p. 146; Putzeys, paras. 547 and 551. So held in TC Verviers
18.5.68 (1968) 3 ETL 1240 (oral notice to the driver and a telephone call to the
carrier); Lige 6.5.70 (1970) 5 ETL 717, 721-2 (telephone to the carrier);Antwerp

21.6.78 (1978) 13 ETL 601 (telephone to the carrier, followed by letter confirming the call,
to which no objection was raised by the carrier).
207 City Vintages v. SCAC Transport International (High Court, QBD, 1 December 1987).
208 Cass. 29.4.75, 1977 ULR I 334.
209 Reservations need not be entered on the consignment note: Antwerp 21.6.78 (1978)
13 ETL 601, 604; Rennes 19.3.87, BT 1988.89 but it will be enough to do so: Cass.
29.4.75, BT 1975.298, 1977 ULR I 334.
210 Cf. Basedow, Arts 30, 12 who suggests reference to the principles of UNIDROIT.
211 See above, 5.
212 Cf. the view of Loewe, para. 228, that it would be enough to give oral reservations
immediately on delivery, because such notice is more onerous. This seems to be correct
only if in such circumstances the loss or damage was apparent and oral reservations
thus allowed by Art. 30.1.
213 Antwerp 30.5.79 (1979) 14 ETL 924.
214 See above, 25a. Also see Cass. com. 27.9.2011 BTL 2011, 587, Idit no. 23648.
215 For example, Lyon 22.4.88, BT 1989.176. Cf. Nossovitch, BT 1982.544.
216 See above, 61a.
217 Bordeaux 28.4.97, BTL 1998.417.
218 For the meaning of delivery, see above, 37. For this purpose delivery does not occur
until the entirety of the consignment has been handed over to the consignee: Putzeys,
para. 564. For the meaning of the time of delivery, see above, 61a.
219 This probably means days that are public holidays at the place of delivery: Loewe,
para. 225.
220 OLG Zweibrcken 23.9.66, NJW 1967.1717; Cass. 19.6.68, BT 1968.315; Cass.
Belge 7.6.74 (1975) 10 ETL 68, 1976 ULR I 370; Paris 26.10.82, BT 1982.593; Brussels
21.1.87 (1987) 22 ETL 741; Brussels 7.2.92 (1993) 28 ETL 286. Basedow, Arts 30, 14;
Nickel-Lanz, paras. 116 et seq.; cf. Poitiers 20.1.82, BT 1982.233. In this respect the
CMR is unlike comparable regimes such as the CIM, KVO and, indeed, an earlier draft of
Art. 30: Haak, p. 191.
221 HM, para 10.4. Likewise, the Dutch lawyer: Haak, p. 192. In the same sense as the
text on the parallel provision of the Hague-Visby Rules, Art. III.6; see Scrutton, p. 434.
But cf. Rodire, paras. 457 and 590; and the French decisions discussed above, 60.
222 Art. 30.1.
223 This view was rejected in Cass. 15.7.86, BT 1986.542: the court below had required
of the claimant not only proof of reservations but also proof of the existence and extent of

the damage mentioned in the reservations. On appeal this decision was censured: it
sufficed that the claimant had sent reservations. See above, 61.
224 Brussels 21.1.87 (1987) 22 ETL 741.
225 Above, 58.
226 Any mode of proof will do: Libouton, para. 65.
227 See above, 59b.
228 The meaning of writing is discussed above, 61b.
229 But see OGH 19.9.02, (2002) 39 ETL 400, ULR 2004.688.
230 BGH 14.11.91, TranspR 1992.135 (1993) 28 ETL 265 Nickel-Lanz, para. 120.
231 Putzeys, para. 578.
232 Clarke, Insurance, para. 26-2E.
233 See below, 231.
234 Above, 54.
235 See (b), below.
236 On the identification of gaps in the CMR, see above, 5.
237 W/TRANS/212, p. 2.
238 For example, Dsseldorf 26.10.78, VersR 1979.405; BGH 27.10.78,
NJW 1979.2473, 2474. Schmid/Kehl. TranspR 1996.89. However, although liability may
be based on national law, Art. 32 has been applied as the limitation period for that
liability: OLG Hamburg 9.2.89, TranspR 1990.191. For a more nuanced German view,
see Basedow, Arts 17, 3.
239 Leges speciales or Sonderflle. Generally, see Horn, Ktz and Leser (trans.
Weir), German Private and Commercial Law: An Introduction (Oxford, 1982), Chap. 6.
Even to the extent of a monograph devoted to the resulting gaps in the CMR: B.
Lieser, Die Ergnzung der CMR durch verein-heitliches deutsches Recht (Berlin, 1991).
For such issues in other countries, see Haak and Swart, part I.
240 OGH 14.11.84, Greiter, 245, 248; OGH 13.6.85, SZ 58/102, Stra GV 1985/12, p.
10.
241 Some instances are listed in OGH 14.11.84, Greiter, 245, 248.
242 The duty is imposed by Art. 7.3, see above, 24.
243 Art. 14: see above, 33a.
244 Art. 15: see above, 33b.

245 The duty is imposed by Art. 12, see above, 32 et seq. Liability for breach of this duty
is regulated partly by the CMR and partly by national law: see above, 33d.
246 The duty is imposed by Art. 11.3, see above, 63.
247 The duty is imposed by Art. 21, see above, 38.
248 The latter duty is something of a hybrid, for it is affected by some provisions of the
CMR, such as Art. 29: see above, 38b.
249 The author is not aware of any such rights having been enforced in the UK, however,
it seems to have occurred in Germany: BGH 20.1.05, TranspR 2005.311.
250 See below, 220 et seq.
251 OLG Hamburg 9.2.89, TranspR 1990.191.
252 BGH 9.2.79 (1980) 15 ETL 84, 89.
253 Above, 54.
254 OLG Hamm 14.11.85, TranspR 1986.77.
255 This seems to have been the intention of the authors of the CMR: TRANS/WP.9/11,
p. 32.
256 (1966) 1 ETL 691. In Austria see Hg Vienna 3.4.84, TranspR 1984.152 in which the
court declined to take jurisdiction under Art. 31.1(b), which refers to the place where the
goods were taken over by the carrier, because, although the carrier had promised to
take over the goods in Vienna, it had been unable to do so. Also OGH 12.6.01, (2003) 38
ETL 357. But cf. Besanon 23.6.82, BT 1982.394 in which the CMR was applied to such
a case.
257 (1966) 1 ETL 691, 696.
258 At p. 697.
259 See below, 205.
260 TranspR 1991.61.
261 See above, 32a.
262 See above, 33a.
263 See above, 33c(ii).
264 VersR 1979.405. The court saw failure to obtain instructions and the poor choice of
storage as die Vertragsverletzung (above, 64) and hence outside the CMR.
265 But cf. above, 31a.
266 At least one of the factors which influenced the Dsseldorf court might not influence
a court in England. The storage arose out of a duty which the carrier had undertaken to
perform prior to the actual movement of the goods. If, as appears, the carrier had control

of the goods with a view to their carriage, an English court would see this pre-carriage
phase as one occurring after the goods had been taken over and hence as a part of the
carriage governed by the CMR: see above, 27.
267 (1980) 15 ETL 84. See also Milan 11.7.75, 1977 ULR I 336.
268 Below, 92.
269 (1980) 15 ETL 84 at p. 89.
270 Emphasis added.
271 (1980) 15 ETL 84 at p. 90.
272 See also above, 33d(i).
273 Even in Germany, delivery to the wrong person is not delivery under the contract of
carriage: OLG Munich 27.3.81, VersR 1982.264; see above, 37. See also The Hague
27.5.83, S & S 1984 No. 68: the driver delivered to the wrong tank at the consignees
premises, and the CMR was applied to damage (leakage) that subsequently occurred;
and in England Shell Chemicals UK Ltd v. P & O Road Tanks Ltd [1993] 1 Lloyds Rep
114, affirmed [1995] 1 Lloyds Rep 297(CA). Clarke [1993] LMCLQ 156.
274 E.g., TC Paris 14.3.78 (1978) 13 ETL 742, 746: the cases assimilate total loss and
non-delivery.
275 Above, 64.
276 This is of importance in some countries, including England, Germany, Holland, Italy,
and Switzerland, where parallel actions in contract and tort are allowed, but not in other
countries, such as Belgium and France, in which parallel actions are not allowed:
Basedow, Arts 28, 1; Haak, p. 238; Pesce, p. 299; Putzeys, para. 985. Concerning the
application of Article 28 in Spain see the decision Tribunal Supremo 22.09.06, Idit Fiche
5/166, that where it was a clear-cut case of contractual liability, national rules of noncontractual liability were excluded. The Court reaffirmed that where non-contractual
liability was an issue, then Article 28 would apply.
277 Basedow, Arts 28, 2; Haak, p. 237.
278 OGH 14.11.84, Greiter, 245, 248, a view repeated verbatim in OGH 12.12.84, Stra
GV 1985/5, pp. 12, 13, Greiter, 263, 265.
279 Notably, the Misrepresentation Act 1967, s. 2(1): below, 241.
280 OGH 14.11.84, Greiter, 245, 248, a view repeated in OGH 12.12.84, Stra GV
1985/5, pp. 12, 13, Greiter, 263, 265. Also in this sense: Haak, p. 238 (but cf. p. 241);
Herber/Piper, Arts 28, 3; Koller, Arts 28, 2; Nickel-Lanz, para. 183; Thume, Arts 28, 5.
Contra: Loewe, para. 212. Cf. claims by third parties: Basedow, Arts 28, 10.
281 OLG Hamburg 9.2.89, TranspR 1990.191. Basedow, Arts 28, 13; Herber/Piper, Arts
28, 6; Koller, Arts 28, 4; Thume, Arts 28, 14. See above, 43a.

282 HM, para. 9.69. A similar suggestion is made about reservations under Art. 30 and
the jurisdiction provisions in Art. 31.
283 Art. 18.2. See below, Chap. 7.
284 In s. 13 of the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977 (below, 239) the legislator thought it
both desirable and necessary to single out, and, by implication, to distinguish from other
exclusions, a clause excluding or restricting rules of evidence or procedure, which is
also to be treated as an exclusion under the Act. However, the section also singles out a
clause excluding or restricting any right or remedy, which by most definitions would be
regarded as an exclusion or, which is generally treated as meaning the same, an
exemption. Semble the special treatment given by the Act to these clauses is purely
precautionary.
285 Carter, Breach of Contract (Sydney, 1984), para. 248. Semble terms affecting the
onus of proof come within Lord Devlins category of exceptions and the like:
[1966] CLJ 192, 208-09. But cf. Coote, Exception Clauses (London, 1962),Chap. 1 and
Lewison. The Interpretation of Contracts (5th edn, London, 2011), Chap. 12.
286 OGH 10.11.81, SZ 54 No. 165, TranspR 1982.111, Greiter, 108.
287 Also in this sense: Haak, p. 239; Herber/Piper, Arts 28, 5; Koller, Arts 28, 4; NickelLanz, para. 181; Thume, Arts 28, 9 et seq. It appears, however, that Art. 28 is not aptly
worded to preserve the jurisdictional provisions of the CMR (Art. 31, above, 46 et seq.).
288 In the case of the tort of negligence, however, the duty of care may be limited by the
contractual setting, so that the claimant is no better off framing his action in tort than he
would have been if he had framed it in contract. See below, 229a.
289 See above, 41 and 42.
290 HM, para. 9.65. Note: in some countries he may have title to sue on some ground
other than contract, such as the right of disposal: above, 41 and 42. Generally, see
Basedow, Arts 28, 10.
291 Generally, see International Encyclopedia of Comparative Law, vol. III, Chap. 32
(Ehrenzweig) and Chap. 33 (Stromholm); Rogerson, Colliers Conflict of
Laws (Cambridge, 2013). Cf. De Boer, Beyond Lex Loci Delicti (Deventer, 1987);
Patocchi, Rgles de Rattachement Localisatrices (Geneva, 1985), paras. 317 et seq.