Abstract
An obligation to exercise due diligence is to my mind indistinguishable from an obligation to exercise reasonable care – a concept not unfamiliar in English law….1
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
References
The Muncaster Castle [1960] 1 Q.B. 536, 581 per Willmer L.J.
Wilson & Clyde Coal Co. y English [1938] A.C. 57,80 per Ld. Wright; Davie v. New Merton Board Mills [1959] A.C. 604, 651–2. Tesco Supermarkets v. Nattrass [1972] A.C. 153, 199 per Lord Diplock. In the U.S.A. see Peter Paul v. M.S. Christer Salen (1957) 152 F. Supp. 410.
The Muncaster Castle [1960] 1 Q.B. 536, 559; v. also Wilimer L.J. at p. 587.
] A.C. 8o7.
Jolowicz 1960 Camb. L.J. 17, 1961 Camb. L. J. 165. Riska pp. 94, 102. Cf. Villareal 2 J.M.L.C. 763.
The Amstelslot [1962] r Lloyd’s Rep. 539, 553 per McNair J.; [1963] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 223, 235 per Ld. Devlin. Leesh River Tea Co. v. B.I.S.N. [1967] 2 Q.B. 250, 277 per Salmon L.J. Cf. The Dimitrios N. Rallias (1922) 13 L1.L.R. 363, 365.
Rodière nos. 497 bis and 618; Rodière Précis nos. 315, 388.
Generally, v. Ripert et Boulanger, Traité de Droit Civil t. II nos. 779 ff.; Demogue, Obligations no. 1237; Marton, Rev. Trimestrielle de Droit Civil 1935. 499; Carbonnier, Droit Civil t. 4 no. 71; Mazeaud, Leçons de Droit Civil t. 2 no. 21; Mazeaud Rev. Trimestrielle de Droit Civil 1936.1; Planiol et Ripert, Traité Pratique de Droit Civil, t. VI nos. 376 ff.; Tunc, S.J. 1945–1–449–
Mazeaud, Leçons loc. cit.
Op. cit. no. 378 ter.
Thus Tunc, op. cit. no. 4, says of the doctor’s duty to his patient: “Le médecin ne s’engage pas à guérir, mais à donner des soins conscientieux, attentifs et conformes aux données acquises de la science. Il s’oblige à employer les moyens en son pourvoir pour arriver à un résultat qui reste extérieur au contrat. L’objet de l’obligation est différent.”
Mazeaud, Rev. Trimestrielle de Droit Civil 1936. I no. 48.
See e.g. Aubrun D. 37.4.18 citing Belgian cases such as Baron Kinneard, T.C. Anvers 22.3.35, Dor 34.156; Brussels 22.5.31, Dor 25.122. Also Emo J.C.P. 52—I-967 and de Juglart Sem. Jur. 56—Ií.9135.
D. 37.4.18.
Dor 7.1, 17; cf. Besse D.M.F. 68.451, 454; Villareal 2 J.M.L.C. 763, 766.
Transports Internationaux p. 131.
Oceanic 11.6.48, D.M.F. 50.65; also Brussels 22.5.30, Dor 25. 122.
Tensi/t, T.C. Seine 20.2.51, D.M.F. 52.514 (S), summarised in J.C.P. 52—I-967 no. 12 and adopted by Pourcelet no. 57.
Infra ch. 15 no. I.
No. 290.
Finistère, Montpellier 14.11.51, D.M.F. 52,87; Stilbé, Montpellier 26.2.52, D.M.F. 53.8; Leconte de Lisle, T.C. Marseille 19.3.54, D.M.F. 55.165; Mintaka ‘N’, T.C. Rouen 9.3.62, D.M.F. 63.407; Tensift, T.C. Seine 20.2.51, D.M.F. 52.514 (S). For a tendency to equate all exceptions in the Rules with those in L36 see Julia C. Ertel, T.C. Paris 15.5.68, D.M.F. 69. 234.
] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 336, 345.
Cf. the use of `latent’ to mean simply ‘hidden’: London & Rangoon Trading v. Ellerman Lines (1923) 14 L1.L.R. 497, 508; The Dimitrios N. Rallias (1922) 13 L1.L.R. 363, 366; Pearce v. Round Oak Steel Works [1969] 1 W.L.R. 595, 596. Cf. also Cranjield Bros. v. Tatem S.N. Co. (1939) 64 Ll.L.R. 264, 271, where Hilbery J., having found that the carrier had used due diligence concerning a defective rivet, said that “there would be great difficulty in the way of saying…that this was a latent defect.” He did not explain.
Rodière nos. 648, 649; D.M.F. 62.335; D.M.F. 67.323; Ripert no. 1808; Marais, Transports Internationaux p. 132; Aubrun D. 37.4.8; de Juglart Sem. Jur. 56–11. 9135. In the cases v. Zelidja T.C.Havre 14.2.56, Rouen 1.2.57, D.M.F. 57. 418.
Differences of detail are considered later.
Dor 7.1, 4.
Rodière, Précis no. 362, echoed by the cases: Guinée, Rouen 8.11.52, D.M.F. 53.84; Gladstone, T.C. Marseille 18.12.53, D.M.F. 54.354; Marseillaise, Rabat 15.6.54, D.M.F. 55.223; Lord Gladstone, Saigon 6.10.54, D.M.F. 56.139; P.-E. Javary, Rouen 13.1.55, D.M.F. 56.145; Compiègne, Paris 24.10.55, D.M.F. 56.153; Algeria 313, Rouen 10.2.56, D.M.F. 57.13; Zeldija, Rouen 1.2.57, D•M•F. 57. 418; Cérons, Paris 3.5.57, D.M.F. 58. 397; Ban/ora, Aix 28.5.57, D.M.F. 58.89, Tamara, Aix 4.6.57, D.M.F. 58.337; Merkurius, Paris 19.6.59, D.M.F. 60.86; Maneah, Rennes 17.2.60, D.M.F. 61.231; Bourgogne, Sent. 27.2.61, D.M.F. 61.749; Berkans, T.C. Marseille 5.3.71, D.M.F. 71.721; Pointe Marin, T.C. Havre 9.5.72, D.M.F. 72.497. For a similar formula for latent defects in a ship sold, see Gwalarn, Rennes 23.10.67, D.M.F. 68. 608.
Traité Pratique de Droit Civil (i952) t. VI no. 378 bis.
Dimopoulos pp. 213–4.
T.C. Marseille 9.12.58, D.M.F. 59. 553.
Aix 27.6.61, D.M.F. 62.740.
See also Trois Soeurs, C. de C. 26.11. 1898, Autran XIV.329: “la voie d’eau avait été le résultat de forces combinées et invisibles ayant agi en dehors de toutes prévisions,” and hence was a case of force majeure. Pacific Express, T.C. Dieppe 16.9.49, Gaz. Pal. 49.2.293: “Attendu… qu’il est prévisible qu’un filtre s’obstrue… qu’il est donc d’une diligence raisonnable de vérifier et nettoyer les filtres.” Ogogue, Rabat 30.6.53, D.M.F. 54.586: “la formation imprévisible d’une voie d’eau” is a latent defect. Andreina Marsano, Sent. 13.11.56, D.M.F. 57. 220: “le mauvais fonctionnement des appareils frigorifiques ne saurait être considéré comme un cas fortuit et de force majeure impossible de prévoir.” Tamara, Aix 4.6.57, D.M.F. 58.337: “le vice caché est celui qui, par son caractère imprévisible, a échappé à une vigilance constante.” Cap Farina, T.C. Sète 23.6.67, D.M.F. 68.223: “on doit entendre par le vice caché du navire… tous défauts échappant à un contrôle minutieux des techniciens et se révélant subitement d’une manière imprévisible et irrésistible.” Rodière D.M.F. 62. 335, 337.
T.C. Rouen 8.2.68, D.M.F. 68.548; Herculis, Paris 5.2.62, D.M.F. 62.345; for a similar interpretation, see Chaland F, Paris 29.10.24, Dor Sup. 2.873; Euphorbia, Pau 25.6.34, Dor Sup. 12.355, Dor 30.329 (Harter Act).
Ville d’Anvers, 30.6.72, D.M.F. 72.722, 725; Cassarate, Aix 4.5.72, D.M.F. 72.662; Container-Forwarder, Paris 21.6.72, D.M.F. 72.675; Esbern Snare, Aix 20.12.72, D.M.F. 74.240 (S); Jongkind, T.C. Paris 10.1.73, D.M.F. 73.610; Heidi Wiards, T.C. Paris 2.4.73, D.M.F. 74.296; Koudekerk, Aix 9.5.73, D.M.F. 73.654. Cf. Cassarate, T.C. Marseille 7.9.71, D.M.F. 72. 366.
Balvy, Poitiers 9.5.73, D.M.F. 73.659; Biafra, Rouen, 3.11.72, D.M.F. 73.650. 49 Med Star, Paris 4.12.73, D.M.F. 74. 233.
Infra ch. 15 no. 2 (ii) and (iii).
Tensift, T.C. Seine 20.2.51, D.M.F. 52.554 (S); Oceanic, T.C. Dunkerque 14.1.52, D.M.F. 52.424; Gladstone, T.C. Marseille /8.12.53, D.M.F. 54.354; Lord Gladstone, Saigon 6.10.54, D.M.F. 56.139; Compiègne, Paris 24.10.55, D.M.F. 56.153; Zelidja, Rouen 1.2.57, D.M.F. 57.418; Cirons, Paris 3.5.57, D.M.F. 58.397; Ban/ora, Aix 28.5.57, D.M.F. 58.89; Maneah, Rennes 17.2.60, D.M.F. 61.231. Cf. Tamara, Aix 4.6.57, D.M.F. 58.337 and Rodière, Précis no. 362 which appear to take a more lenient view.
) 13 LI.L.R. 363, 366.
Italics supplied. The bill of lading contained a clause excepting perils of the sea provided that the ship was seaworthy. A further clause provided that “any latent defects in the hull and/or machinery shall not be considered unseaworthiness.”
Paris 24.10.55, D.M.F. 56.153.
Maneah, Rennes 37.2.60, D.M.F. 61. 281.
T.C. Seine 22.6.55, D.M.F. 56.166; Paris 21.2.57, D.M.F. 58.21; Comm. 20.2.62, D.M.F. 62.335; Markianos p. 136.
The Amstelslot [1962] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 336, 345, approved in the House of Lords by Lord Evershed [1963] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 223, 231. See also Lord Denning M.R. in the Court of Appeal at p. 341.
Cf. the more conventional attempt to define latent defect in the sale of goods: “something that could not have been discovered at the time by any examination which in the light of then existing knowledge it was reasonable to make” — Hardwick Game Farm v. S.A.P.P.A. [1968] 3 W.L.R. 11o, 122 per Lord Reid.
] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 223, 230–1.
Lloyd’s Rep. 223, 233.
] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 336, 347.
Infra. ch. 15.
Supra ch. 12.
Scrutton R.J.C. Ev. no. 443; Rodière D.M.F. 67.323, 324.
See e.g. Wright J. in Anglise v. P. & O. S.N. Co. [1927] 2 K.B. 456, 464; Diplock L.J. in The Amstelslot [1962] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 336, 315.
De Juglart Sem. Jur. 56—II. 9135 citing Aubrun.
Jackson v. Mum/ord (1903) 8 Corn. Cas. 61, 68, 69 per Kennedy J.; Carver no. 29o. Infra ch. 15 no. 2 (ii).
Infra ch. 15 no. I.
Rodière nos. 756 and 764; see also Tetley p. 151 who, surprisingly, appears to agree. Infra ch. 16 no. 3.
Corporacion Argentina de Productores de Carnes v. Royal Mail Lines (1939) 64 L1.L.R. 188, 192 per Branson J.; The Amstelslot [1963] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 223, 23o per Lord Reid.
Marais, Les Transports Internationaux p. 133. Cf. the words of Porter J. in Charles Brown & Co. v. Nitrate Producers Steamship Co. (1937) 58 Ll.L.R. 188, 192 that art. III r. r refers to a duty to provide equipment, while art. IV r. 2 (p) refers to duties of maintenance; there is no basis in the authorities for such a distinction. Cf. also Rodière no. 649: “La différence tient d’abord à ce que l’innavigabilité (art. IV r. r) peut résulter d’un vice apparent.” This is literally true; but it should be recalled that the exonerating cause is not simply unseaworthiness but unseaworthiness not caused by any want of due diligence; if the defect is apparent there will not have been due diligence. Cf. also the view of Prodromides that the carrier who pleads latent defect will not be liable for the negligence of independent contractors: C.M.I. Documentation, Stockholm Conference p. 521.
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 1976 Martinus Nijhoff, The Hague, Netherlands
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Clarke, M.A. (1976). Due Diligence in General. In: Aspects of the Hague Rules. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-011-8854-8_14
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-011-8854-8_14
Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht
Print ISBN: 978-94-011-8199-0
Online ISBN: 978-94-011-8854-8
eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive