A Comparative Analysis of Package Limitation .. International Conventions & MARITIME CODE of ETHIOPIA

www.abyssinialaw.
com
A Comparative Analysis of Package Limitation under International

Conventions & the Maritime Code of Ethiopia
Tsehai Wada∗
1. INTRODUCTION
The commercial transportation of goods from one place to another, on board

a ship may be effected either through charter party or bill of lading contracts.
A charter party generally suits the need for shipping of a large quantity of
goods or bulk cargo. On the other hand, bill of lading contracts suit the
shipment of goods as general cargo. 1 A charter party regulates the
relationship between a ship owner and a charterer while a bill of lading
contract binds not only a shipper and ship-owner, that is, the immediate
contracting parties, but also the consignee abroad and his assignee, as well
as to a certain extent bankers who take up such documents as securities for
loans granted to their customers. 2 Since almost all cargo owners invariably
insure their cargoes with underwriters, in cases of loss or damage they
collect indemnity from the latter and underwriters have the right to subrogate
to the rights of the insured. Thus, insurers and re insurers also have stakes in
bills of lading transactions.
The ship has served as the chief means- in prehistory and antiquity-of the
carriage of goods and people over great distances and the first Maritime
∗Assistant Professor, Faculty of Law, Addis Ababa University.

1
Thomas J. Schoenbaum, Admiralty And Maritime Law, 2nd ed., West Publishing Co., St. Paul, Minn.,
(1994), p., 491.
2
NJJ Gaskell, C.Debattista and R.J.Swatton, Chorley and Giles’ Shipping Law, 8th ed., Pitman Publishing,
London, (1995), p. 169.
www.abyssinialaw.com
Code i.e. The Rhodian Law – dates back to 900 B.C. 3 Despite this long
history, in the United Kingdom for example, which is one of the major
maritime states with rich tradition in shipping, parliament’s first interference
with the law relating to sea carriage occurred in the eighteenth century. 4
Since then many laws have been enacted with a view to regulating this
branch of business. The Merchant Shipping Act of 1894 and the Carriage of
Goods by Sea Act of 1971 of the U.K. and the Harter Act of 1893 and the
Act Relating to the Carriage of Goods by Sea of 1936 of the U.S.A. are
notable laws enacted in this regard.
Given the risky nature of running a ship, i.e. the multitude sea perils that
confront a ship under voyage, it is quite common for shipping laws of many
countries to accord special privileges to ship-owners. Accordingly, different
shipping laws allow a ship owner to limit his liability to persons suffering
loss or damage through negligent navigation or management of his ship,
usually according to the size of his ship. 5 Furthermore, as a carrier of cargo,
the ship and ship-owner are by statute freed from liability for damage to
cargo in many situations for which other types of carriers are liable. 6
General average, which is a scheme of risk-sharing and package limitation,
which is a legal scheme that entitles a ship owner to limit his liability to a
certain sum of money calculated per package or other units of measurement
of goods, are also incorporated in shipping laws of so many countries with a
view to encouraging ship-owners engaged in this risky business.
3
Grant Gilmore and Charles L. Black Jr., The Law of Admiralty, The Foundation Press, Brooklyn, (1957),
pp. 2 and 3.
4
Gaskell, et.al., Supra Note 2, p.168.
5
Ibid, p. 394.
6
Gilmore and Black Supra Note 3, p. 663.
The Maritime Code of Ethiopia, (hereinafter the Code), also accords all
these benefits to ship-owners. Accordingly, As per Articles 80 and the
following of the Code, ship-owners are entitled to limit their liability in
respect of claims arising from loss of life of, or personal injury to, any
person being carried in the ship, and loss of, or damage to, any property on
board the ship. The Code also entitles a ship-owner to share sacrifices and
expenditures made by way of general average with others, under Article 251
and the following. As far as bill of lading contracts are concerned, ship-
owners are exempted from liability for loss or damage to cargo arising or
resulting from a number of grounds (Art. 197). The type and list of grounds
that may lead to the exemption of a ship-owner from liability under the Code
are more extensive than those accorded to land or air carriers under the
Commercial Code of Ethiopia. 7 Even when a ship-owner cannot be
exempted from liability for failure to prove the existence of the different
grounds enumerated under Article 197, he is entitled to limit his liability for
loss of or damage to goods to five hundred Birr per package or other unit
normally serving for the calculation of the freight (Article 198). This last
legal entitlement is known as “Package Limitation” or according to the
Code’s naming, “Global Statutory Limitation of Liability.”
Package limitation, though an incentive to ship-owners, has failed to serve as

a mechanism of striking a balance between the conflicting interests of ship
owners on the one hand and cargo-owners, on the other. The major
shortcoming of package limitation is its use of a national currency or its
substitute, gold, as a basis of limitation. The devaluation of national
7
Compare Art. 197 of the Maritime Code of Ethiopia with Arts. 589 – 600, (On carriage by land) and
Arts.630-649 (on carriage by air), of the Commercial Code of Ethiopia.
currencies due to inflation and the introduction of containers as a frequent

means of packing cargoes have made the traditional formula of package
limitation outdated and disadvantageous to cargo interests. This situation
has, therefore, called for the adoption of a new formula with a view to
bridging the gap between the two interests. Accordingly, international
conventions as well as domestic shipping laws have been amended, time and
again, so as to respond to current developments. However, the package
limitation provided under the Code has not been amended for more than
forty years. Moreover, the pertinent article of the Code suffers from a
mistranslation. Those who make use of it, including courts, also misconceive
the Article.
In light of the above-mentioned situations, this article attempts to shed light

on current international developments with regard to package limitation and
the major shortcomings of the Code. Three court decisions rendered by
Ethiopian courts at different times are discussed with a view to showing
problems encountered in the application and interpretation of the law. The
article concludes with few suggestions that can help in amending the law in
the future and/or interpret the law in accordance with its spirit.
2. THE LEGISLATIVE HISTORY OF PACKAGE LIMITATION.
Sea carriage is by and large international. A ship, though owned by a

national of one state may carry different goods belonging to persons of
different nationalities. It may also enter and leave ports of various states for
the purposes of loading and unloading cargoes. A contractual relationship
based on bills of lading can, therefore, be subject to different laws and thus
trigger conflict of laws. Major shipping nations felt that uniformity of laws
may be achieved through multilateral treaties as far back as 1882, and not
through individual or separate acts of states. One of the most contentious
issues that demanded uniformity was package limitation.
In addition to conflict of laws that may be created as a result of contractual

relationships based on bills of lading, there is yet another situation that has
also called for uniformity of laws internationally. This situation is the
imbalance between the bargaining powers of the two parties represented in a
given bill of lading. In the words of one author, the situation before
uniformity looks as follows:
The basic contractual liability of the carrier for loss of, or
damage to, the goods covered by a bill of lading was
substantially eroded during the second half of the nineteenth
century. Taking advantage of the current lasissez faire
philosophy and a favorable market, carriers sought to restrict
their liability by the use of exceptions drafted as widely as their
bargaining position would allow. So, successful were their
efforts in this direction that inevitably they provoked a reaction
from shippers, bankers and underwriters who were becoming
increasingly dissatisfied with the lack of protection afforded to
cargo interests. 8
The struggle between the interests of the respective parties demanded a

mechanism whereby the conflict can be resolved amicably in particular
through international agreements. One of the earliest agreements made in
this regard was the Liverpool Conference Form Bill of Lading. This form
was adopted by the International Law Association at Liverpool in 1882 and
promulgated by the New York Produce Exchange, with some amendments,
in 1883. One of the issues settled in the conference was package limitation.
8
John F. Wilson, World Shipping Laws, International Conventions, Preface, Carriage by Sea, Oceania
Publications Inc., Dobbs Ferry, New York, (1986), p. V.
Accordingly, the instrument put the limitation of liability at £ 100 per

package. 9
Though the Liverpool Conference Form Bill of Lading was adopted in 1882,
it could not bring about uniformity on package limitation with a wider scope
of application. Thus, the quest for uniformity continued and as a result of
this, the Comité Maritime International (herein after C.M.I.), which was
originally a Committee of the International Law Association, was formed in
1896 for the purpose of promoting worldwide uniformity of maritime law.
The committee’s endeavor in search of uniformity as well as the struggle
between ship owning and cargo interests, eventually culminated in the 1924
Convention for the Unification of Certain Rules Relating to Bills of Lading,
otherwise known as, The Hague Rules. This convention was signed at
Brussels on August 25, 1924.
The Convention provided, among others, for: the fixing of package

limitation at 100-Pound Sterling per package or unit; non-applicabity of the
limitation in cases when the nature and value of goods have been declared or
these have been knowingly mis-stated by the shipper; and the possibility of
fixing a greater amount of limitation through the agreement of the parties. 10
9
John C. Moore, The Hamburg Rules, Journal of Maritime Law and commerce, Vol. 9, (1977-1978), p.1.
10
The relevant part of the Convention reads as follows:
Article 4(5)
Neither the carrier nor the ship shall in any event be or become liable
for any loss or damage to or in connection with goods in an amount
exceeding 100 Pounds Sterling per package or unit or the equivalent of
that sum in other currency, unless the nature and value of such goods
have been declared by the shipper before shipment and inserted in the
bill of lading.
This declaration if embodied in the bill of lading shall be prima facie

evidence but shall not be binding or conclusive on the carrier.
In addition to these, the convention also provided for the different grounds
that may exempt a carrier from liability. Thus, the purposes achieved
through the adoption of the Hague Rules are in short, allocation of loss or
damage between carriers and shippers, establishing the basic liabilities of the
carrier and prescribing the extent to which this liability could be limited or
excluded by private agreement between the parties. 11
Some writers acclaimed the convention as successful for being based on

commercial practicality. However, through time, it appeared that the
convention could not address current problems that cropped up in the 1950s
By agreement between the carrier, master, or agent of the carrier and

the shipper another maximum amount than that mentioned in this
paragraph may be fixed, provided that such maximum shall not be less
than the figure above named. Neither the carrier nor the ship shall be
responsible in any event for loss or damage to, or in connection with,
goods if the nature or value thereof has been knowingly mis-stated by
the shipper in the bill of lading.
Article 9
The monetary units mentioned in this convention are to be taken to be
gold value.
Those contracting states in which the Pound Sterling is not a monetary

unit reserve to themselves the right of translating the sums indicated in
this convention in terms of Pound Sterling into terms of their own
monetary system in round figures.
The national laws may reserve to the debtor the right of discharging his
debt in national currency according to the rate of exchange prevailing
on the day of the arrival of the ship at the port of discharge of the
goods concerned.
11
Wilson, Supra Note 8, p. V.
and onwards. The major limitations of this convention were inter alia: the
erosion of the value of Pound Sterling and the absence of a clear definition
of the term “Package” that reflects the technological development of the
time.
Over the years, inflation had eroded the value of £100 gold,
differential rates of inflation had created international
disparities, with potential conflict of law problems, and
technological developments had increased the size of packages
from those, which could be man-handled by two men to the 40-
foot container, weighing, with its contents, up to 35 tons. [Thus,
consequently raising] the question of what was and what was not
a package. 12
For these and other few reasons, the need to amend the Hague Rules was felt
by the business community. Accordingly, the C.M.I started reviewing the
Hague Rules in 1959 at Rijeka, Yugoslavia and this process culminated in a
proposal of amendment. Even if the proposal was agreed upon at a plenary
conference of the C.M.I. held at Stockholm in June 1963, it was completed
at the XII Maritime Diplomatic Conference convened by the Belgian
Government in February 1968. The proposal culminated in an act known as
“Visby Amendments”, after the name of the place where it was made in
1963 (i.e. Visby, Gotland).
The Visby Rules, though completed in 1968, came into force in 1977. The
Rules have made substantial changes on carrier/shipper relationships in
general and package limitation in particular. Accordingly, the £100
limitation is substituted by gold that was believed at the time, to be more
stable. Moreover, the Rules provided among others: for an alternative
method of calculating package limitation, which is weight of goods,
expanded the definition of packages so as to include containers, and made
12
Moore, Supra Note 9, p. 3
clear that the deliberate or reckless act of a carrier that caused damage can
be a ground to take away the privilege of invoking package limitation 13.
However, once again as the dramatic fall of the value of Pound Sterling
made the Hague Rules package limitation inadequate, so also the gold lost
its monetary functions and no longer had an official price in some
countries. 14 Generally speaking, there was a consensus among the business
community that the gold had failed to reflect the actual value of goods and
package limitation should, therefore, be fixed against a new modern unit that
is acceptable by all.
Apart from the Pound versus the gold controversy, a new controversy started
to crop-up in the late 1970s. This controversy focused on, not only the
replacement of gold by another unit, but in general on an equitable and
balanced relationship between carriers and shippers. The developing
countries felt that the Hague Rules unfairly protected the ship-owner,
13
The relevant parts of the Rules wherein major changes were introduced read as follows:
Article 2.
Article 4, paragraph 5 shall be deleted and replaced by the following:

a. …neither the carrier nor the ship shall in any event be liable for any loss or damage to or in
connection with the goods in an amount exceeding the equivalent of Frs. 10,000 per package or
unit or Frs. 30 per Kilo of gross weight of the goods lost or damaged, whichever is the higher.
c. Where a container, pallet or similar article of transport is used to consolidate goods, the number
of packages or units enumerated in the Bill of Lading as packed in such article of transport shall
be deemed the number of packages or units for the purpose of this paragraph as far as these
packages or units are concerned. Except as aforesaid such article of transport shall be considered
the package or unit.
d. A franc means a unit consisting of 65.5 milligrames of gold of millesimal fineness 900. The date of
conversion of the sum awarded into national currencies shall be governed by the law of the court
seized of the case.
e. Neither the carrier nor the ship shall be entitled to the benefit of the limitation of liability provided
for in this paragraph if it is proved that the damage resulted from an act or omission of the carrier
done with intent to cause damage, or recklessly and with knowledge that damage would probably
result.
Note. Except for the above, the other relevant provisions of the new legislation are substantially similar
to the former.
14
Schoenbaum, Supra Note 1, p. 525.
- The official price of gold was abolished by the Second amendment of the IMF’s Article on April 1, 1978.
placing too heavy a burden on the shipper. 15 Moreover, the C.M.I. and the
International Maritime Organization (I.M.O.), which consider themselves
the guardians of the Brussels conventions, were seen, in the eyes of the
developing countries, sympathetic to traditional maritime states that own the
great majority of world ships and therefore, did not suit the former’s needs. 16
Thus, a new initiative to revise the old rules was undertaken under the
auspices of the United Nations Conferences for Trade and Development
(UNCTAD) and the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law
(UNCITRAL), which were considered as sympathetic to the needs of
developing countries. Accordingly, a new convention known as the
Hamburg Rules was promulgated in 1978, in Hamburg, Germany. 17 The
new Hamburg Rules have made a substantial and revolutionary, so to say,
changes on carrier’s liability. One of the major changes introduced by
Hamburg Rules is the replacement of Franc or gold by other units of account
calculated against the SRD (Special Drawing Right) as defined by the IMF
(International Monetary Fund). 18
15
Gaskell, et.al., Supra Note 2, p. 321
16
Schoenbaum, Supra Note1, p. 525
17
The convention is also known as “United Nations Convention on the Carriage of Goods by Sea, 1978”.
18
The relevant parts of Rules wherein major changes are introduced read as follows:
Article 6 – Limits of liability
1. (a) The liability of the carrier for loss resulting from loss of or damage to goods ….is
limited to an amount equivalent to 835 units of account per package or other shipping
unit or 2.5 units of account per kilogramme of gross weight of the goods lost or damaged,
whichever is the higher.
…
2. Unit of account means the unit of account mentioned in article 26.
………..
Article 26.Unit of Account.
1. The unit of account referred to in article 6 of this Convention

is the Special Drawing Right as defined by the International Monetary
Fund. The amounts mentioned in article 6 are to be converted into the
national currency of a State according to the value of such currency at
the date of judgment or the date agreed upon by the parties. The
values of a national currency, in terms of the Special Drawing Right of
a Contracting State which is a member of the International Monetary
Though promulgated in 1978, the Hamburg Rules came into force on

November 1, 1992. It was noted above, that the Hamburg Rules were
designed to reflect the interests of developing nations. Accordingly, the
Convention entered into force by the ratification of 20 states, mostly from
Africa. The developed nations, though not interested in being parties to this
Convention, did not disregard the need to amend the Hague Visby Rules so
as to conform to new developments 19. Thus, they signed a new treaty
known as the Visby Amendments or Protocol Amending the International
Fund is to be calculated in accordance with the method of valuation

applied by the International Monetary Fund in effect at the date in
question for its operations and transactions.
The value of a national currency in terms of the Special Drawing Right

of a Contracting State, which is not a member of the International
Monetary Fund, is to be calculated in a manner determined by that
State.
2. Nevertheless, those States which are not members of the International

Monetary Fund and whose law does not permit the application of the
provisions of paragraph 1 of this article may, at the time of signature, or at
the ratification, acceptance, approval or accession or at any time
thereafter, declare that the limits of liability provided for in this Convention
to be applied in their territories shall be fixed as: 12,500 monetary units per
package or other shipping unit or 37.5 monetary units per kilogramme of
gross weight of the goods.
3. The monetary unit referred to in paragraph 2 of this article

corresponds to sixty-five and a half milligrammes of gold of millesimal
fineness nine hundred. The conversion of the amounts referred to in
paragraph 2 into the national currency is to be made according to the
law of the state concerned.
4. The calculation mentioned in the last sentence of paragraph 1 and the
conversion mentioned in paragraph 3 of this article is to be made in
such a manner as to express in the national currency of the Contracting
State as far as possible the same real value for the amounts in article6
as is expressed there in units of account.
Note. Except for these, the relevant provisions of the two Conventions i.e.
the Visby amendments and the Hamburg Rules are by and large similar.
19
Note. This observation is made taking into account the respective dates of promulgation of the two
conventions, but not the dates of their entry into force.
Convention for the Unification of Certain Rules of Law Relating to Bills of

Lading, 25 August 1924, as amended by the Protocol of 23 February 1968.
The coming into force of the Protocol needed the deposit of five instruments
of ratification or accession. (Article VII (1). The Protocol was signed by ten
states on 21 December 1979 and came into force three months after this
date. The major purpose of the Protocol was to change the standard of
computation of package limitation from gold to another timely and suitable
standard, i.e. SRD. 20
3. PREREQUISITES TO AND MAJOR CHARACTERISTICS OF,

PACKAGE LIMITATION
The relationship between shippers and carriers had proved to be a

contentious issue that has demanded the intervention of the law as well as
amendments of laws, time and again. Originally, a common carrier was
made absolutely liable for the safety of the goods entrusted to him while a
private carrier was only liable when loss or damage resulted from his
20
The relevant provisions of the Protocol wherein major changes were introduced read as follows:
Article II
1. Article 4, paragraph 5, (a) of the Convention is replace d by the following:
a….. neither the carrier nor the ship shall in any event be or become liable for any loss or damage to
or in connection with the goods in an amount exceeding 666.67 units of account per package or unit or
2units of account per kilogramme of gross weight of the goods lost or damaged, whichever is higher.
Note The other relevant provisions of the two legislation are almost identical. The only major
difference is the amount of units to be applied in those countries, which are not members of the IMF
and whose laws do not permit the application of the relevant provisions of the Conventions.
Accordingly, the counterpart of Article 26(2) of the Hamburg Rules reads in the Protocol as follows:
Nevertheless, a State which is not a member of the International Monetary Fund and whose law does
not permit the application of the provisions of the preceding sentences may, at the time of ratification
of the Protocol of 1979 or accession thereto or at any time thereafter, declare that the limits of liability
provided for in this Convention to be applied in its territory shall be fixed as follows:
i. in respect of the amount of 666.67 units of account mentioned in sub-paragraph (a) of
paragraph 5 of this Article, 10,000 monetary units;
ii. in respect of the amount of 2 units of account mentioned in sub-paragraph (a) of paragraph 5
of this Article, 30 monetary units.
negligence. 21 However, ship-owners, given their financial might, started to

insert clauses that mitigated their liability, in bills of lading. This trend had
displeased shippers as well as others who with vested interest in cargo
safety. Thus, the grievance of cargo interests called for the standardization
of bill of lading contracts. As a result of this, shipper-carrier relationship
was no more left to the wishes of the parties and this is a legally regulated
affair at present.
As noted above, apart from the allocation of risks between the parties, the
method of valuation of package limitation has been a contentious issue that
demanded repeated amendments of international agreements as well as
domestic laws. Package limitation can be seen from two different vantage
points. On the one hand, it is a legally recognized privilege of the carrier,
which is designed to save the same, from crippling losses from loss of or
damage to goods while in his custody. Thus, had it not been for this legal
privilege, a carrier would have been liable for loss of or damage to goods to
their full value. On the other hand, package limitation is a restriction on the
contractual right of a carrier. Thus, unlike in the old days, a carrier cannot at
present insert a clause that reduces his liability below the legal minimum.
But, a carrier is at liberty to increase his liability and agree on another
maximum liability.
The above quoted provisions of the different international agreements

clearly show that package limitation is the heart of the basic laws as well as
the later amendments. The fact that all agreements include provisions that
deal with package limitation amply proves this assertion. Moreover, it will
21
Gaskel, et-al., Supra Note 2, p. 167.
not be wrong to assert that at times, the sole purpose of amendment was
fixing the unit of liability of package limitation. The 1979 Hague Visby
amendment is a case in point.
As noted above, currently, there are two major international legal regimes
that govern carrier-shipper relationships and these are: the Hamburg Rules
and the Hague Visby Rules and the amending Protocol. Both instruments
provide for package limitation, albeit with different units. The privilege to
invoke package limitation can be exercised only under specific
circumstances, but not arbitrarily. Moreover, the new unit of account, i.e.
SDR and the relationships between packages and containers are recent
developments that need to be known by all those who are interested in the
issue. Thus, given the technical nature of package limitation, a brief
explanation pertaining to the conditions under which a carrier can invoke it
and some of its major characteristics will be in order.
3.1 PRECONDITINS TO INVOKE PACKAGE LIMITATION.

As noted above, package limitation is a privilege accorded on carriers so as
to save them from crippling losses that ensue from damage to or loss of
goods. This being a statutory privilege accorded at the cost of cargo
interests, it can be exercised under limited conditions only. Moreover, since
sea carriers are accorded special privileges to avoid any liability under
specific circumstances, they are not required to invoke package limitation,
for the former privilege makes the latter redundant. These conditions are
discussed here below.
3.1.1 EXEMPTION FROM ANY LIABILITY
Under the Hague Rules, a carrier is exempted from any liability for loss or
damage caused due to seventeen specific grounds [Article 4 (2)] 22 Moreover,
deviation in saving or attempting to save life and property at sea can exempt
a carrier from liability for loss or damage to goods resulting therefrom
[Article 4(4)]. The list of exempted perils is not affected by the amending
legislation. Thus, if any one of the grounds listed is proved to be the
“proximate” cause of loss or damage, a carrier is totally exempted from
liability. A carrier is also not liable where the nature or value of goods has
been knowingly mis-stated by the shipper in the bill of lading. [Article 4(5)]
Under these situations, it is of no importance for a carrier to invoke package
limitation.
The Hamburg Rules do not contain these excepted perils. Under the
Hamburg Rules, “it is the common understanding that the liability of the
carrier … is based on the principle of presumed fault or neglect [and] … as a
rule, the burden of proof rests on the carrier …” 23 In accordance with Article
5 of the Convention the following are the basic liabilities of a carrier:
The carrier is liable for loss resulting from loss of or
damage to the goods, as well as from delay in delivery, if
the occurrence which caused the loss, damage or delay
took place while the goods were in his charge … unless the
carrier proves that he, his servants or agents, took all
measures that could reasonably be required to avoid the
occurrence and its consequences.
22
The list of exempted perils is identical to those provided under Art. 197 of the Maritime Code of
Ethiopia.
23
Common understanding adopted by the United Nations Conference on the Carriage of Goods by Sea.
In addition to these, a carrier can be exempted from liability resulting from

necessary deviation, etc. [Article 5(6)]. Thus, under the Hamburg Rules, if a
carrier has taken all measures that could reasonably be required to avoid the
occurrence and consequence of a loss of or damage to goods, it is totally
exempted from liability 24 and it is not required to invoke the privilege of
package limitation.
3.1.2 EXCEPTIONS TO THE PRIVILEGE
In case where a carrier cannot avail any one of the grounds that can exempt
it from total liability, it goes without saying that it should be made liable for
the loss or damage suffered by the cargo owner. Under these circumstances,
in principle, the carrier should compensate the cargo owner to the full value
of the goods lost or damaged. However, since package limitation is a
statutory right of the carrier, it can limit its liability to the extent provided by
the law. Though a carrier is entitled to limit its liability, it cannot do so
under exceptional circumstances. Major exceptions to this privilege are the
following.
Under the Hague Rules, if the nature and value of goods are declared by the
shipper before shipment and inserted in the bill of lading, a carrier cannot
avail its right to limit its liability [Article 4(5)] and Article 2 (a) of the Hague
Visby Rules). 25 In addition to this, a carrier is entitled to waive its right to
package limitation. Accordingly, if a carrier agrees with a shipper to
increase its liability and to fix another maximum, it is the agreed upon
24
An acontrario reading of Article 5.
25
Similar exceptions are not provided under the Hamburg Rules.
amount that controls, instead of the statutory package limitation. [Hague

Rules, Article 4(5) Article 2 (g) of the Hague Visby Rules] At last, a carrier
may lose its right to limit its liability, if the loss or damage resulted from its
act or omission done with intent to cause damage or recklessly and with
knowledge that damage would probably result. [Article 2(e) of the Hague –
Visby Rules and Article 8 of the Hamburg Rules] 26
As noted above, in case where the cause of loss or damage to goods is one of
the excepted perils or any one of the grounds that can exempt a carrier from
any liability, the carrier is not required to invoke its right to package
limitation, for it serves no purpose. On the other hand, in case where a
carrier is liable for loss of or damage to goods, it cannot avail its right to
package limitation, when it is expressly prohibited to do so. Thus, a carrier
should pay the price of the lost or damaged goods to be calculated by
reference to the value of such goods at the port of destination. 27
3.1.3 OPPORTUNITY TO DECLARE A HIGHER VALUE.
It is noted above, that when a shipper has declared the nature and value of
the goods to be shipped and this is indicated in the bill of lading, a carrier
may not be entitled to limit its liability. In addition to this, some local laws
provide that a carrier may lose its privilege to limit its liability when the
shipper has no adequate notice of the limitation by a Clause Paramount in
the bill of lading and the latter is not given a fair opportunity to avoid the
26
The Hague Rules do not contain similar exceptions.
27
See Article 2(b) of the Hague – Visby Rules
limitation by declaring excess value and paying extra freight. 28 This is the
position in the U.S.A. However, it should be noted that the pertinent law,
i.e. COGSA does not expressly provide for this exception, but this is created
by judicial decisions. Moreover, there is a split of opinions on this issue as
well as on the methods how a carrier can give this opportunity to a shipper. 29
3.2 MAJOR CHARACTERISTICS
3.2.1 UNITS OF ACCOUNT
Under those circumstances wherein, a carrier can limit its liability, liability
can be limited in the following manner:
a. Under the Hague Rules, the liability of the carrier is limited to 100-
Pound Sterling per package or unit or the equivalent of that sum in
other currency [Article 4 (5)].
b. Under The Hague -Visby Rules, a carrier’s liability is limited to

10,000 Francs per package or unit or 30 Francs per kilo of gross
weight of the goods lost or damaged, whichever is the higher. A
Franc means a unit consisting of 65.5 milligrammes of gold [Article 2
(a) and (d)]. 30
28
Schoenbaum, Supra Note 1, p.613.
29
Ibid. pp. 613 and 614. For more details on this particular issue, i.e. “Fair Opportunity”, see Michael F.
Sturley, The Fair Opportunity Requirement Under COGSA Section 4(5): A Case Study in the
Misinterpretation of the Carriage of Goods by Sea Act, Journal of Maritime Law and Commerce, Vol. 19,
No. 1, January, 1988, pp. 1-35, and [part II], Vol. 19, No.2, April, 1988, pp.157- 206.
30
The Hague and Hague-Visby Rules on package limitation are no more operative, for they are amended
by the 1979 Protocol. See (d), below.
c. Under the Hamburg Rules, liability is limited to 835 units of account

per package or other shipping unit or 2.5 units of account per
killogramme of gross weight of the goods lost or damaged, whichever
is the higher. The unit of account is the Special Drawing Right
(S.D.R.) as defined by the International Monetary Fund (I.M.F.).
[Article 6(a) and 26].
d. Under the 1979 Protocol that amended the Hague-Visby Rules,
liability is limited to 666.67 units of account per package or unit or 2
units of account per killogramme of gross weight of the goods lost or
damaged, whichever is higher. The unit of account is SDR, as defined
by the IMF. [Article 2(a) and (d)].
The legislative history of package limitation shows that the unit of account
has passed through many phases. First it was the Pound Sterling, and then
came Franc and now it is the SDR. The fact that the SDR is given legal
recognition under the two important legal instruments, i.e. the Hamburg
Rules and the 1979 Protocol show that the much-desired uniformity on this
particular issue is achieved at last. Thus, as can be easily understood from
the reading of the pertinent provisions of the two instruments, except for the
figures, i.e. 835 and 2.5 under the Hamburg Rules and 666.67 and 2 under
the 1979 Protocol, one is a verbatim copy of the other. The SDR is,
therefore, the single unit of account at present.
SDR is a unit of account determined by the I.M.F.

… The technique since July 1, 1974 has been to relate the value
of the SDR to a “basket” of currencies according to which the
SDR is equal to a total of fixed amounts of 16 currencies.
Through its close institutional links and arrangements with
members, and a computerized set of calculations, the Fund
determines the exchange rates of currencies in terms of the SDR

for the purpose of its own operations and transactions, and
publishes these rates on a daily basis for a growing number of
member currencies. 31
For those states, which are members of the I.M.F., the value of the SDR is
equivalent to the rate published by the Fund at the date in question. A non-
member state can determine the value of its national currency in terms of the
SDR. In this regard “[t]he simplest method that a non-member state may
choose is to select the currency of a member of the [I.M.F.] as the reference
currency and to value its own currency as published by the Fund.” 32 In
those non-member states, whose laws do not permit the application of the
preceding conditions, the unit of account is not SDR, but 12,500 monetary
units or 10,000 monetary units per package or 37.5 or 30 monetary units per
killogramme of gross weight of the goods, whichever is higher. Monetary
units mentioned here are of the Hamburg Rules and the 1979 Protocol
respectively and a unit corresponds to 65.5 milligrammes of gold. Generally
speaking, it can be said that the Hamburg Rules are more shipper friendly
than the 1979 Protocol. It should, however, be noted that the business
community is well aware of the fact that the SDR, like its predecessors, may
fail to reflect the real value of goods, in the future. To this effect, the
Hamburg Rules provide that in case when there is a significant change in the
real value of the SDR, and the need to substitute it by another unit arises, a
revision conference can be called upon the request of a minimum of one
fourth of the contracting states and the pertinent provisions can be amended
by a two-thirds majority of the participating states (Article 33).
31
Stephen A.Silard, Carriage of the SDR by Sea: The Unit of Account of the Hamburg Rules, Journal of
Maritime Law and Commerce, Vol. 9, (1977 – 1978), p.18
32
Ibid, p.33
3.2.2 PACKAGES AND OTHER UNITS OF MEASUREMENT
When a carrier is liable for the loss of or damage to goods, its full liability or
the amount of money that it should pay, is dependent on the number of
packages or units or weight of the goods lost or damaged. In this regard, the
Hamburg Rules provide for 835 SDR per package or other shipping unit or
2.5 SDR per killogramme of gross weight of the goods lost or damaged,
whichever is higher. The 1979 Protocol on the other hand provides for
666.67 SDR per package or unit or 2 SDR per killogramme of gross weight
of the goods lost or damaged, whichever is higher. Thus, the liability of a
carrier depends on the nature in which the goods were transported, i.e. in
packages or otherwise.
… the definition of the term “package” is flexible one: any
preparation of a cargo item for transportation that facilitates
handling but does not necessarily conceal or completely enclose
the goods. This is broad enough to include a wide variety of
methods of consolidation of goods ranging from boxed items to
materials tied together or lashed to skids or pallets, it would
necessarily exclude certain types of cargoes such as loose
liquids, bulk cargo, and fish. 33
Thus, only cargo that is shipped unenclosed and fully exposed is not a
“package.” 34 The other multipliers of the SDR are: “units” or “shipping
units” and “weight” of the goods lost or damaged.
For a long time, it has been debatable whether or not a container is a

package. However, at present this is no more an issue, for the two
international instruments have solved it by providing clear provisions to this
effect. Accordingly, where a container, pallet or similar article of transport
33
Schoenbaum, Supra Note 1 above, p, 606
34
Ibid, p. 605
is used to consolidate goods, the number of packages or units enumerated in

the bill of lading as packed in such article of transport shall be deemed the
number of packages or units and in the absence of this, such article of
transport shall be considered the package or unit. (Hague – Visby Rules,
Article 2 (c) and Hamburg Rules, Article 6 (2) (a)) As far as containerized
cargoes are concerned, therefore, what matters is the figure indicated under
the column assigned for number of packages. If the figure indicates the
number of packages packed in a container or the unit of items, say for
example 10 packages of radios or two TV sets, the applicable unit of SDR
shall be multiplied by the number of packages or units indicated in the bill of
lading. Where such figures are not indicated and the figure mentioned is the
number of containers, for example “one or two containers” only, then the
unit of SDR shall be multiplied by the number of containers. It should,
however, be noted that even when goods are packed in containers or other
packages, a carrier can be obliged to pay a sum of the fixed SDR multiplied
by the weight of the goods lost or damaged, provided that this is
advantageous to the shipper or consignee.
4. PACKAGE LIMITATION IN ETHIOPIA: THE LAW AND

THE PRACTICE.
4.1 SOURCES OF THE LAW.
The Code was drafted either by Mr. Jean Escarra or Mr. Jauffret of France.
Mr. Escarra was originally commissioned to draft the Code. The draft
commercial code was submitted to the then Imperial Commission for the
Codification of Ethiopian law, which consisted of foreign as well as local
jurists. The Commission had deliberated on the draft at two times, once in
the presence of Mr. Escarra in 1954 and then in 1958 in the presence of Mr.
Jauffret, who took over the task of drafting the Code after the former’s
death. The Code was then officially enacted in 1960 along with the Civil
and Maritime codes.
As far as the Code is concerned, the minutes of the Commission are well
documented and the sources of each provision of the Code are expressly
indicated therein. This monumental document is edited and translated into
English by Professor Peter Winship, in 1972. 35 Given the nationality of the
drafters, it is presumed that the draft was originally prepared in French and
then translated into Amharic and English. The Civil and Penal Codes were
made in the same manner.
It seems that drafting and enacting a separate code dealing with maritime
affairs was found to be necessary at the later stage of the Commission’s
deliberation on the draft Code. The drafter, in his report to the Commission,
submitted on January 18, 1954 alluded to this fact by saying that “[His] task
has been expressly extended to maritime law.” 36 He had also indicated the
possibility of enacting the Maritime Code either as a separate code or as a
part of the Commercial Code by citing the experience of different European
countries, notably France and Italy. It looks that, due to the “particularism”
of the maritime law, 37 the Commission had opted to enact the law in a
35
Peter Winship, (editor and translator), Background Documents of the Ethiopian Commercial Code of
1960, H.S.I.U., Faculty of Law, (Unpublished), (1972).
36
Ibid, p. 5
37
Id.
separate and independent code. So the law was enacted in a code that
contained 371 articles, in 1960.
Unlike its counterparts, i.e. the Civil, Commercial and Penal Codes, the
Code was not originally drafted in French. 38 Moreover, either the minutes of
the meetings of the Commission were not recorded or even if they were
recorded, their whereabouts are unknown. The absence of such a document
makes the task of researching into the sources of the Code very difficult, if
not impossible.
The drafters as well as the Codification Commission of the Commercial

Code have occasionally made references to the Code in their minutes. These
references, though made in passing, can shed light on the sources of the
Code. One of such references made by Mr. Escarra on January 18, 1958
states:
Some very important commercial institutions have been the
object of international conventions … there are also more
perfected international conventions: the diplomatic conventions
signed following conferences at which duly accredited
representatives of the interested states are represented … These
diplomatic conventions are most numerous at present in
commercial and maritime matters and much of maritime law
comes from the conventions common to a more or less large
number of states.
On Ethiopia’s attitude to conventions of this kind, one might be

tempted to advise her simply to adhere to most of these
conventions, which would give her quite advanced legislation.
But no matter how desirable this solution might be, it must be
examined with great care because of its repercussions. 39
38
The Civil, Commercial and Penal Codes were published in three languages, i.e. French, English and
Amharic. But, the Maritime Code was published in English and Amharic only. Thus, the absence of the
French version of the code may indicate that it was not originally drafted in French.
39
Winship, Supra Note 35 above, pp. 7 and 8
On another occasion, in March 1958, Mr. Jauffret made the following

statements:
[On] Carriage by air
… most carriage by air is international and, in fact, almost all

countries have adhered to the Warsaw Convention of 1929 …
Given these conditions, I recommend the adoption of the

solutions contained in the Warsaw Convention as the internal
law of Ethiopia … this is the same idea behind many provisions
of the Maritime Code, including the recent amendments to that
code which were made after an exchange of views confirmed the
advantages of this conception … as far as possible the
international text has been reproduced word for word. 40
The Code of Ethiopia deals with many aspects of the shipping business and
some of these are: Maritime liens and mortgage of a ship, limitation of
liability, maritime employment, charter party agreements, contract of
carriage supported by a bill of lading, maritime collisions, assistance and
salvage, General average and Marine Insurance. A closer look at Title VI of
the Code, which deals with Participation in General average, evinces that
this part of the Code is by and large taken from the York-Antwerp Rules. 41
As far as that part of the Code which deals with contract of carriage
supported by a bill of lading (Title IV, Chapter 2, section 5, Articles 180-
209), is concerned, though it may be difficult to conclude that the articles
under the section are verbatim copies of this or that convention, their
probable source is “The International Convention for the Unification of
Certain Rules of Law Relating to Bills of Lading of 1924” otherwise known
as “The Hague Rules”. The articles contained in these two laws, though not
40
Ibid., p. 84
41
The first York rules were adopted in 1864. These were revised in 1877 at Antwerp. The York-Antwerp
Rules were first adopted by the International Law Association in 1880, then revised in 1924, 1949 and
again in 1974. The probable source of the Ethiopian law of General Average can be the 1949 Revision.
arranged uniformly are very similar with each other. [Please, shorten this
statement]
In some cases, certain articles of the two laws are identical. Articles 197
of the Code and 2 of the Convention, which deal with grounds of
exemption of the carrier from liability and Articles 200 of the Code and
6 of the convention, which deal with dangerous goods, are cases in point.
Given these similarities, as well as the statements made by the two
drafters 42 (quoted above), it will not be wrong to conclude at this stage
that the source of the Ethiopian Law of contract of Carriage of Goods
by Sea is the Hague Rules. As shown above, the Hague Rules before
being amended by The Hague-Visby Rules in 1968, was the prominent
convention in 1960, when the Maritime Code was enacted. [Please
reconsider this paragraph for clarity]
4.2 PACKAGE LIMITATION
The pertinent provisions of the Hague Rules and the Code read as follows:
Hague Rules – Article 4(5)

Neither the carrier nor the ship shall in any event
be or become liable for any loss or damage to or
in connection with goods in an amount exceeding
100 Pound Sterling per package or unit or the
equivalent of that sum in other currency, unless the
nature and value of the goods have been declared
42
The Minutes of the Commission do not clearly show who drafted the code. It may, however, be
presumed that Mr. Escarra might have commenced the work and it was completed by Mr. Jauffret.
by the shipper before shipment and inserted in the

bill of lading.
The Maritime Code of Ethiopia (1960).
Article 198. Global Statutory Limitation of Liability.
1) In respect of loss or damage to goods, the

liability of the carrier shall not exceed one
thousand Ethiopian dollars.
2) The statutory limitation shall be determined

by package, and in respect of goods loaded in
bulk, on the basis of the unit normally serving for
the calculation of freight.
3) The statutory limitation may not be setup

against the shipper where the nature and value of
the goods have been declared by the shipper
before shipment, and such declaration has been
inserted in the bill of lading.
The Code is published in two versions only, and these are Amharic (The
official language of Ethiopia) and English. [It has been already stated many
times including in the footnote.] In case of conflict between the two
versions, the Amharic version prevails over the English. As regards Article
198, though the two versions are by and large similar, the Amharic version
has put the extent of liability at five hundred Ethiopian dollars instead of one
thousand Ethiopian dollars. Whether or not this is a deliberate act or a slip
of the pen is unknown, for background materials are not available. One
may, however, guess that this is a deliberate act, for the English version of
the Code provides for a list of articles that need to be corrected (corrigenda)
and the difference in sums seen under Article 198 is not mentioned here.
Moreover, the term “Packages” mentioned under sub-Article 2 of Article

198 is translated as “bundles,” in the Amharic version.
The provisions of the Hague Rules and the Maritime Code of Ethiopia [is it
possible to use the term `Code`` throughout the article instead of repeating
the words ``the Maritime Code of Ethiopia`` in so many places?] quoted
above are more or less similar except for minor differences. Accordingly,
apart from the difference in the amount of package limitation, the Hague
Rules provide that the sum shall be calculated in terms of the number of
packages or “units” while the Maritime Code of Ethiopia provides that the
sum fixed should be calculated in terms of packages or “in respect of goods
loaded in bulk, on the basis of the unit normally serving for the calculation
of freight.” Given this difference and in particular the difference in the
amount of money provided under the two laws, it appears that Article 198 of
the Maritime Code of Ethiopia is much closer to the Carriage of Goods by
Sea Act (COGSA) of the U.S.A., than the Hague Rules. Section 1304(5) of
the former law reads as follows:
Neither the carrier nor the ship shall in any event

be or become liable for any loss or damage to or
in connection with the transportation of goods in
an amount exceeding $500 per package lawful
money of the United States, or in case of goods not
shipped in packages, per customary freight unit, or
the equivalent of that sum in other currency, unless
the nature and value of such goods have been
declared by the shipper before shipment and
inserted in the bill of lading … (Underlines
added).
The figures mentioned under Article 198 of the M.C.E. and the COGSA are
identical, i.e. 500 43. Moreover, the expression used under the M.C.E., i.e.
“… in respect of goods loaded in bulk” is similar to “goods not shipped in
packages” (COGSA’s expression). It is also presumed that the expression
“on the basis of the unit normally serving for the calculation of freight” in
the M.C.E. is not different from the “customary freight unit” mentioned in
COGSA. Given these similarities, it can be presumed, with caution, that the
source of Article 198 of the M.C.E. is COGSA. 44
4.3 THE PRACTICE
In this section we will take a look at three cases in which a carrier- The
Ethiopian Shipping Lines Corporation - invoked its right to package
limitation, decisions rendered by Ethiopian courts and bill of lading
provisions of the carrier pertaining to the issue. This will be followed by
comments and criticisms.
4.3.1. Case Reports45
43
Note. COGSA has set the limit at 500 USD for the reason that in 1925, the year the United States signed
the Hague Rules Convention, 100 Pound Sterling had an average value of 482. 89 USD and Art. 9 of the
Convention permits contracting states to translate Article 4(5) s 100-Pound Sterling into terms of their own
monetary system in round figures. Michael, F. Sturley, Supra Note 29. at p.177, Foot Notes, No. 321 and
322.
44
This assertion is not warranted. However, in the absence of background materials this is the only law
that this author has found to be closer to the Maritime Code of Ethiopia.
45
The following three decisions are written in Amharic. The cases are, therefore, translated into English in
such a way as to show relevant facts, central issues and the courts’ rulings on the issue of package
limitation in particular. Thus, what follows is not the literal translation of the cases. Moreover, not so much
cases on this particular issue are brought to courts, for the practice is that those who have claims against the
Ethiopian Shipping Lines or in most cases insurers, settle their cases by accepting the legally set amount
from the Claims Section of the Carrier. Thus, the number of cases presented here – though only three- can
show the practice or the general judicial trend.
Case Number One.

Ginbot 11, 1981 (Ethiopian Calendar – EC) / (1989 G.C.)
The High Court of Addis Ababa
Civil File No. 689/78
Plaintiff: Girma Kebede.
Defendants: 1. The Ethiopian Shipping Lines Corporation
2. Maritime and Transit Services Corporation 46
- Facts of the case.
- The Plaintiff had handed over five cartons of different items locked in
a car, one other carton of goods and a car, to Defendant number one,
so that the cargo shall be transported on board a ship owned by the
latter.
- The Defendant had issued a bill of lading – No. 001 – evidencing
receipt of the goods.
- The goods were transported from Rotterdam to Assab (A former port
of Ethiopia).
- Upon arrival of the goods at their port of destination, it was
discovered that some of the contents of the five cartons were missing
and their total price is alleged to be 12,000 Ethiopian Birr (The
national currency).
- The plaintiff claimed full compensation for the lost items.
- Defendant’s arguments.
46
The arguments of the Second Defendant as well as the Court’s ruling on its role in the affair are omitted,
for they have no relevance to the subject at hand.
The defendant has raised a number of points, which in its opinion, can
exempt it from any liability or limit its liability. These were, inter alia:
- The Plaintiff had failed to notify the loss of the goods within three
days as provided under Article 23 of the bill of lading;
- The bill of lading stipulates that the carrier is not liable for the loss of
or damage to goods, carried on deck;
- For the above reasons, it is exempted from any liability;
- Alternatively, if at all there is any liability on its part, per Article 24 of
the bill of lading, its liability is limited to a maximum of 200 Pound
Sterling.
- The court’s ruling.
The Court ruled on the above issues as follows.
- The fact that the Plaintiff failed to notify the loss of the goods within
three days cannot limit its right to bring action within one year, as
provided under Article 203 of the M.C.E.
- Per Article 180(4) of the Code, a carrier is exempted from liability for
damage to goods carried on deck, caused as a result of common
elements of the sea, such as salty seawater and others only, but not for
the total loss of goods.
- The Defendant is, therefore, liable for the loss. As regards the extent
of liability, however, its liability is limited to 500 Birr per package,
and this comes to 500 x 5 (number of packages) 2,500 Birr.
Case Number Two.

Ginbot 9, 1985 EC / (1993 G.C.)
Region 14 Administration Zonal court, [Addis Ababa]
Civil File No. 1709/84
Plaintiff: Melesse Asfaw.
Defendant: The Ethiopian Shipping Lines Corporation
- Facts of the case.
- The Plaintiff had handed over a car to the Defendant at Jeddah, Saudi
Arabia.
- The Defendant had issued a bill of lading – No. 25 – evidencing
receipt of the car.
- The car was transported from Jeddah to Assab and its price is alleged
to be 40,000 Birr.
- Plaintiff failed to handover the car to its owner on the ground that it
had delivered the item to the Port Authority and that the war situation
at the port area prevented the Authority from effecting final delivery.
- Plaintiff claimed compensation to the full extent of the loss.
- It has unloaded the car at its port of destination and the Captain of the
ship has sent a telex message to this effect. Thus, it has discharged its
contractual obligation.
- The car could not be delivered to the Plaintiff due to the war situation
at the place and time when the ship left port. Thus, it is not liable for
the loss.
- Alternatively, if at all there is any liability, its liability is limited to
500 Birr or 100 Pound Sterling.
- The Defendant has failed to prove that it has delivered the car to a
third party that is responsible for its safe custody. Its allegation that
the Captain of the Ship has sent a telex message stating that the car
was unloaded does not prove that it has discharged its contractual
obligation.
- Though there was a war situation at the port of destination at the
relevant time, the ship entered and left port peacefully. Moreover, the
Defendant did not prove that it was forced by the occupying forces to
unload the cargo.
- For the above two reasons, the Defendant is found to be liable for the
loss.
- The bill of lading simply states that the item loaded was “1 Datsun,
Nissan Sunny with radio cassette, Model 8-S” but not the nature and
value of the goods which are cumulative prerequisites of Article 198
(3) of the M.C.E. For this reason the Defendant should be made liable
to the extent of 500 Birr only.
Case Number Three.

Tikimt 12, 1978 E.C./ (1985 G.C.)
Civil File No.71/77

The Central Arbitration Committee 47
Plaintiff: Ethiopian Insurance Corporation
Defendant: The Ethiopian Shipping Lines Corporation
- Facts of the case
- Three cargoes belonging to clients of the Plaintiff were shipped from

the United Kingdom and West Germany to Ethiopia. These cargoes
were lost during voyage and the plaintiff being an underwriter has
paid Birr 3,804.61 to its clients in the form of compensation. Plaintiff
brought this action availing its right of subrogation and seeking refund
of the money it paid to its clients.
- The Defendant has agreed to pay 100-Pound Sterling for each package
lost. However, Plaintiff contended that the bill of lading issued by
Defendant provides that the Hague Rules are applicable to the contract
and that the amount of liability is determined as follows.
a) If the Hague Rules are applicable in the Country of port of

shipment, the liability will be determined according to the
Rules.
b) If the Hague Rules are not applicable, liability will be
determined according to the local law of these countries.
c) If there is no law that governs this situation in these countries,
the Hague Rules shall apply.
47
This was a former judicial organ established to entertain civil cases that arise between governmental
institutions. It is now defunct.
- Two of the cargoes were loaded from the UK and the other from West
Germany and the package limitation under the laws of these countries
are 471.69 Pound Sterling and 1250 Duetch Mark, per package,
respectively. Thus, Defendant should pay compensation based on this
formula.
- The action is barred by limitation.
- The limit of liability per Article 24 of the bill of lading is 100 Pound
Sterling and the alternatives provided under Article 2(b) of the bill of
lading (cited by the plaintiff) are applicable only to cases not covered
by the bill of lading.
- What is provided under Article 24 is special, while that provided
under Article 2(b) is general. Thus, plaintiff cannot be made liable for
more than what is provided under the special article, i.e. 100-Pound
Sterling per package.
- For the above reasons, it is exempted from any liability;
- Article 24 of the bill of lading is a special provision, for it expressly

provides for the amount of liability.
- Article 2 (b) of the bill of lading on the other hand is a general
provision, which cannot prevail over the other provisions of the bill of
lading. Its scope is, therefore, limited to cases not covered by the bill
of lading.
- Per Article 2 (b) of the bill of lading, Plaintiff should not pay more
than 100-Pound Sterling for each package.
[Please put the cases in the form of prose instead of in the form of a case
brief. The readability of your article can be enhanced if you synthesize the
facts of the cases and your opinion together. Please move the citations
details to footnotes.]
4.3.2 RELEVANT PROVISIONS OF BILLS OF LADING
ISSUED BY THE ETHIOPIAN SHIPPING LINES
CORPORATION.
Bills of lading issued by the Ethiopian Shipping Lines contain provisions

48
printed at the back, in fine letters. The Bills divide the liability of the
carrier into three parts, namely port-to-port shipment, combined transport,
and general liability applicable to both. A closer look at the pertinent
provisions indicates that depending on circumstances, national laws, the
Hague Rules, The Hague / Visby Rules, and The Carriage of Goods by Sea
Act 1936 of the U.S.A. are applicable to determine package limitation. 49
48
Note. To the best knowledge of this writer, Bills of Lading issued by the Ethiopian Shipping Lines did
not show any significant change on package limitation, through time.
49
Pertinent provisions of the Bills read in part as follows:
Article 5. Carriers Responsibility.
a) Port to Port shipment.
i. [When goods are lost or damaged while in the actual custody of the carrier, i.e. from loading
to discharge], the liability shall be determined in accordance with any national law making the
Hague Rules or the Hague Rules as amended by the Protocol signed at Brussels on 23 February
1968 (Hague / Visby Rules) compulsorily applicable or, if there be no such national law in
accordance with the Hague Rules contained in the International Convention for the Unification of
Certain Rules Relating to Bills of Lading dated 25th August 1924…..Where the exemptions
contained in the previous sentence may not be valid, the carriers liability shall be governed during
the periods of the Carriers actual or constructive possession before loading on to and after
discharge from the sea going vessel by the provisions of the Carriage of Goods by Sea Act 1936 of
the USA which shall be deemed to be incorporated herein and to apply to such periods.
Note. Article 5(b) deals with Combined Transport and the liability of the carrier for loss or damage to
goods while they are in the actual (physical) custody of inland carriers. This part is omitted for lack of
relevance with subject at hand.
General provisions (applicable to both port to port and combined transport).
v. Ad valorem declaration of Value.
The liability of the carrier, if any, shall not exceed the limits prescribed in any national law or
international conventions unless the nature and value of the goods has been declared by the
The bills nowhere provide that containers shall or shall not be considered as
packages. Article 14 of the bills, however, indicates that the carrier has the
duty to deliver the total number of containers or packages or units (packed in
containers) shown on the face of the bills.
.
4.4 Comments.
4.4.1 On cases.
4.4.1.1 Units of measurement.
Of the three cases summarized above, it is only in case number one that it is
expressly mentioned that the lost items were packed in packages (i.e.
cartons). In case number two, it is nowhere mentioned that the car was in a
given package. Given the practice, items such as cars are usually shipped
outside of packages. In case number three, however, though nothing was
mentioned about the nature and type of goods, it appears that the parties
have agreed that the goods were in packages.
Given these facts, in case number two, the unit of measurement of liability
should not have been packages, but the alternative provided under Article
198 (2), i.e. “the unit normally serving for the calculation of the freight.” In
merchant before shipment and inserted in this Bill of Lading and extra freight paid on such
declared value if required.
vi. Hague Rules Limitation.
Subject to (v) above, whenever Hague Rules are applicable, otherwise than by national law, in
determining the liability of a carrier, the liability shall in no event exceed one hundred Pound
Sterling per package or unit.
this regard, the alternative unit is presumed to be no different from the

phrase “customary freight unit,” which is frequently found in other laws.
Accordingly,
“Customary freight unit applies for goods that are
not shipped in packages. This limit applies to bulk
cargo as well as machinery and equipment shipped
uncrated or unpackaged. It is settled that the
phrase “customary freight unit” means the unit by
which the freight was calculated in the particular
case. The customary freight unit to be applicable
need not have any relationship to the value of the
article involved. It has been calculated by
measures such as weight, cubic feet, and by the
piece involved. 50
Moreover, Article 12 of the bills of lading issued by the Ethiopian Shipping

Lines indicates that freight can be calculated on the basis of weight,
measurement (presumably volume) and value of goods. Thus, whether or
not the alternative method of calculation is advantageous to the shipper, the
court should have gone further and inquired into the basis on which freight
was calculated and then fix the amount of liability.
4.4.1.2 THE AMOUNT OF LIABILITY.
In case number one, the carrier argued that its liability is limited to 200
Pound Sterling. In case number two, the carrier argued that its liability is
50
Schoenbaum, Supra Note 1, p. 612.
limited to 500 Birr or 100-Pound Sterling and in case number three 100-
Pound Sterling only. The courts ruled that in the first two cases the carrier’s
liability is limited to 500 Birr per package, and in the third case, 100-Pound
Sterling.
As far as the carrier’s argument in case number one is concerned, it is not

clear from the facts, whether it was arguing that in any case and irrespective
of the number of packages its aggregate liability cannot exceed 200-Pound
Sterling or its liability is limited to 200-Pound Sterling for each package.
Thus, its argument can be interpreted in two ways. First, if the carrier was
arguing that its aggregate liability in any case could not exceed 200-Pound
Sterling, this is not legally tenable for the Maritime Code nowhere
authorizes a carrier to do so. What is actually provided under Article 198 of
the Code is the minimum amount of liability per package or other units.
Moreover, the carrier has cited Article 24 of its bill of lading as its authority.
However, assuming that the bill of lading issued at the pertinent time
contains such a provision, 51 this provision is void for it cannot contradict the
minimum guarantee provided by law. Second, if, on the other hand, the
carrier was arguing that its liability is limited to 200 Pound Sterling per
package, then the Plaintiff should have been awarded this sum but not 500
Birr per package. In this regard Article 206 (1) of the Maritime Code
provides the following.
Article 206 – Carrier may increase his liability
51
Bills of Lading currently issued by the Ethiopian Shipping Lines do not contain similar provisions.
(1) A carrier may surrender in whole or in part

all or any of his rights and immunities, or increase
any of his responsibilities and liabilities under this
Section provided such surrender or increase shall
be embodied in the bill of lading issued to the
shipper.
Moreover, in case number one, the plaintiff did not allege that all the items
packed in the five cartons were lost upon arrival. Rather he argued that only
some items out of the total consignment were lost. The carrier could have
been liable for the payment of 500 Birr per package only when the whole
package is lost but not when parts of its contents are missing. Thus, if the
plaintiff admits that he has received some items, the amount of liability
should have been decreased in a proportionate manner. However, the
defendant carrier has failed to bring this issue to the attention of the court
and the latter also failed to rule on the issue.
As far as case number two is concerned, though the carrier argued that its
liability is limited to 500 Birr or 100 Pound Sterling, it is not clear why the
court opted to award the plaintiff with 500 Birr only, but not 100-Pound
Sterling. Currently, the exchange rate of Pound Sterling is around 12.25 52
(£ 1 = 12.25 Birr and at the time when the case was decided it could have
been around 10 Birr). Thus, if the court had awarded this sum, the plaintiff
could have been entitled to double of the legal minimum (i.e. one thousand
Birr). The plaintiff, instead of pleading in the alternative had opted–
advertently or inadvertently– to claim the total price of the car only. In so
doing, it has failed to bring to the attention of the court that he is entitled to
52
Source – National Bank of Ethiopia, daily announcement of exchange rates.
an award of £ 100, which is admitted by the defendant. Thus, the court

cannot be fully blamed for this.
4.4.2 ON BILL OF LADING PROVISIONS.
Bills of lading issued by the Ethiopian Shipping Lines Corporation contain

different provisions pertaining to package limitation. These provisions are
printed in fine letters and found at the back of each bill. According to these
provisions, the liability of the carrier is governed by different laws and it is
dependent on the time and place when and where goods were lost or
damaged. A look at the provisions shows that there are three instances
wherein the carrier can invoke package limitation and these are presented as
follows.
- Shipment is divided into two and these are: “combined transport” and
“port to port shipment”. Per Article 1 of the bill of lading “combined
transport arises when the place of receipt and/or place of delivery are
indicated on the face (of the bill) and port to port shipment arises when the
carriage called for … is not combined transport.” The distinction between
the two types of shipments may not be clear from these “definitions”. A
closer look at Article 5 of the bills, however, shows that combined transport
applies to cases where goods are transported to their port of loading and/or
from their port of discharge. Such types of transportation demand the
involvement of other carriers such as trains or lorries, which can transport
goods to/from hinterland destinations to ports. This also seems the reason
why such shipments are popularly known as combined transport. On the
other hand, port to port shipment applies to the transportation of goods from
their ports of shipment to their ports of destination (discharge) only. Hence,

the latter type of shipment excludes the involvement of other hinterland
transporters (See Articles 5 (A) and B of the bills of lading).
Apart from this classification of shipments and conditions of liability, the

bills contain provisions that are applicable to both types of shipments, i.e.
Port-to-Port and Combined [Article 5 (C) (v) and (vi)]. Given the fact that
the carrier’s liabilities and exemptions are clearly provided for each type of
shipment, it is not clear why, the bills provide for a third option which is
applicable to both types of shipment. The conditions as well as the amounts
of liability under the two types of shipment are quite different from each
other. Moreover, the laws that are applicable to each type of shipment, as
cited under the relevant provisions of the bills are quite different. This
situation, therefore, can create confusions and give the carrier wide latitude
of grounds of arguments.
The relevant laws that are applicable to package limitation and cited under
the different provisions of the bills are four. These are: local laws, The
Hague Rules, The Visby Amendments and The carriage of Goods by Sea
Act 1936 of the U.S.A. Given the level of unification attained at present on
this particular issue, i.e. package limitation (discussed above), it may not be
clear why the bills’ provisions cite four different laws. Moreover, given the
fact that the Hague Rules are amended by the Visby protocols and the Visby
amendment is expressly cited in the bills’ provisions, it may again not be
clear why the Hague Rules (which are no more operative) are repeatedly
cited as basis of liability. The only possible explanation that may be offered
in this regard is, that the different conventions discussed herein have
different scopes of application [See Art. X of The Hague and Hague Visby
Rules and Art. 21 of The Hamburg Rules]. Moreover, the reason why The
Hague and The Visby Amendment are mentioned together in the bill of
lading is probably to accommodate the needs of those countries which are
party to the former, but not to the latter. Thus, the rights and duties of the
Ethiopian Shipping Lines, as a carrier, depends on the place where a given
bill of lading is issued, whether or not the country where the bill of lading is
issued is a party to one of the conventions, etc. This, therefore, calls for
issues of conflict of laws whose treatment is beyond the scope of this article.
It, however, suffices to mention that Ethiopian shippers or consignees may
achieve different (better) results if they opt to sue their carrier outside of
Ethiopia, in particular in a country which is a party to one of the
conventions, provided that it is the place where a given bill of lading was
issued or it was the final destination of a given cargo.
The above arguments show that there appears to be lack of clarity in the
bills’ provisions. Moreover, some provisions overlap as a result of which it
is difficult to say with precision which provision or law applies to which
situation. It may, therefore, be assumed that this is one of the major reasons
why the Ethiopian Shipping Lines Corporation argued (in the above three
cases) differently in each case. As shown above, it argued that its liability is
limited to 500 Birr, 100-Pound Sterling and 200-Pound Sterling. Though
the Corporation has the legal right to cite the appropriate law as a basis for
its limit of liability [please, reconsider as to clarity], this uncertainty should
not be allowed to continue.
5 CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS

5.1 CONCLUSION.
Package limitation is a legal mechanism that is designed to save ship-owners

from crippling losses resulting from loss of or damage to goods that may
arise out of the different hazards of the sea. Thus, unlike other instances
wherein a contracting party can be made liable to the full extent of the
damage suffered, a ship-owner is not required to compensate the owner of
goods lost or damaged, to the full extent. A ship-owner is, therefore, entitled
to limit his liability to a certain unit of exchange to be multiplied by the
number of packages or other units of measurement. The legislative history
of the law of package limitation clearly shows that it had been difficult to fix
the amount of liability against a certain currency or other unit of exchange.
Accordingly, at the international level, the liability had been fixed against
Pound Sterling, gold and currently, the SDR. The major reason behind the
shift in the unit of exchange is the failure on the part of the Pound Sterling as
well as gold to reflect the actual value of goods, which changes through
time. At least for the present, the SDR is found to be a convenient unit of
exchange.
The package limitation provided under Article 198 of the Maritime Code of
Ethiopia is 500 Birr per package or other units of measurements. The Code
as well as the pertinent article, i.e. Article 198, has not been amended for the
past forty-two years. However, the Birr has been devalued in the course of
the last forty-two years and the amount fixed under Article 198 of the Code
is no more realistic. Thus, the devaluation of the currency has favored
shipowners and unduly disfavored cargo owners.
It is presumed that the possible source of Article 198 is the COGSA. Given
the similarities in wording as well as the amount of liability, in the two
pertinent provisions of the two laws, i.e. the M.C.E. and COGSA, this
presumption cannot be far from the truth. Moreover, it is again presumed
that in the early 1960s the exchange rate of Birr (Ethiopian Dollar, according
to the Code’s naming) was very close to that of the USD. This writer could
not get reliable information, which shows the exact exchange rate of Birr
against the USD in the early 1960s. However, he has been informed by
anonymous individuals who claim to know this fact, that the difference
between the two currencies was a matter of few cents. [authority?]
Whatever may be the truth, the current Birr is not as strong as the Ethiopian
Dollar of the early 1960s. Given this fact, ascertaining the exact exchange
rate of the Birr against the USD in the early years of the sixties is not that
important for the subject at hand. [You move this to footnotes]
Currently, the exchange rates of Birr against USD, Pound Sterling and SDR
are 8.56, 12.25, and 10.98, respectively. 53 Taking the present exchange rate,
the amount fixed under Article 198 of the Maritime Code of Ethiopia is
roughly equivalent to, 58.4 USD, 41.66-Pound Sterling or 45.54 SDR.
Given the level of uniformity achieved through relevant international
conventions, the limit of liability would have been 835 SDR under the
Hamburg Rules or 666.67 SDR under the 1979 Protocol. 54 However, since
Ethiopia is not a party to any one of the conventions to date, an Ethiopian
shipper / consignee cannot invoke this privilege nor can a carrier be bound
by these limits.
53
Ibid.
54
Had Ethiopia been a party to the Hamburg Rules or the Hague Rules (as amended in 1979), a shipper /
consignee would have been entitled to Birr 9168.3 or 7,370.04, respectively for a package.
Apart from this apparent disparity between the limits of liability under the
Maritime Code of Ethiopia and the relevant international conventions, the
provisions of the bills of lading currently issued by the Ethiopian Shipping
Lines, lack clarity and thus create confusion. Moreover, it seems that there
is lack of appropriate knowledge of this particular area of the law, on the
part of litigants (in particular those who represent cargo owner). This is so,
because these parties have failed in the three cases discussed in this paper, to
bring to the attention of the court certain grounds that would have favored
them. [is this sound conclusion?] Case number one, wherein the carrier
would not have been liable to 500 Birr per package but only to a lesser
amount that is proportional to the goods lost in part and case number two,
wherein the car was not shipped in package and the limit of liability would
have been calculated against weight or unit illustrate this fact.
The Maritime Code of Ethiopia nowhere provides that the deliberate or

reckless act of the carrier can take away the right to limit its liability.
Moreover, the Code does not provide for a duty on the part of the carrier to
give adequate notice of the limitation by a clause paramount. In the absence
of a clear provision in the Maritime Code of Ethiopia, with regard to the
deliberate or reckless act of a carrier that has caused loss or damage, it can
be argued that Article 1801 (2) of the Civil Code of Ethiopia can fill the
lacuna created by the Maritime Code. The sub Article provides that:
[The amount of damage shall be equal to the

damage actually caused to the creditor] where
non-performance is due to the debtor’s intention to
cause damage or to his gross negligence or grave

fault.
In the three cases discussed above, it is only in case number two that the
cause of loss is considered as an issue. In this particular case, it seems that
the court has found the carrier’s act to be reckless, if not intentional. Had
the court proceeded in this line of argument or had the attorney to the
plaintiff brought the point to its attention, it would have reached at a
different conclusion.[please state what that different conclusion might be.]
The Maritime Code of Ethiopia has not been amended for the past forty-two
years. Though a committee was formed in the late 1980s to amend this law
and a similar attempt was made in the early 1990s, these bodies have been
disbanded and the whereabouts of their drafts are unknown. Currently,
though so many other laws are in the process of being amended, to the best
knowledge of this writer, no committee or institution is engaged in
redrafting the Maritime Code. Thus, it seems that the Code will remain
unamended for the foreseeable future.
As shown above, maritime law has made advances in so many aspects.

Given the international nature of the shipping business, the scope of the law
has broadened and its contents are affected by technological developments
as well as economic factors. In light of this reality, it will be proper to
suggest that the country should amend its law and join the modern shipping
world. It may also be argued that working under an outdated law can pose a
potential damage to the national carrier, i.e. the Ethiopian Shipping Lines
Corporation, for shippers may opt in the future, to transport their cargoes
with other carriers which can provide them better privileges.
Ethiopian shippers/consignees are highly disadvantaged by the static

package limitation provided under Article 198 of the Maritime Code.
Accordingly, these parties are entitled to only 5.45% or 6.85% of the
Hamburg Rules and the 1979 protocol limits of liability, respectively. The
package limitation of the Code is, therefore, too disadvantageous to shippers
/ consignees and there is no logical reason that should allow this status to
continue in the future. Thus, it will be timely to amend the law as soon as
possible.
5.2 RECOMMENDATIONS.
If the law is to be amended, the future law should take into account the
following points:
a) The limit of liability set at Birr 500 per package, should be

changed to another unit of account, preferably the SDR and the
amount should be identical or close to, the international standard.
b) The two international conventions provide for an alternative
method of calculation; and this is a calculation against kilograms
or gross weight of goods. This alternative is not, however,
indicated under Article 198 of the Maritime Code. 55 The future
law should, therefore, contain this alternative.
55
Similar alternatives are provided under the Commercial Code of Ethiopia. See Article 637 (1)
c) The law should also expressly provide for the status of containers
and in this regard international conventions can be taken as
models.
d) The intentional or reckless act of carriers as a cause for loss or
damage to goods is not expressly dealt with under the Maritime
Code of Ethiopia. Thus, the issue is left to interpretation.
However, given the fact that this is a clear prerequisite to invoke
package limitation under the international conventions, the future
law should also contain a similar provision. 56
e) Though similar duties may not be found in so many local laws,
future drafters should consider whether or not the law should
impose a duty on the pat of the carrier to give adequate notice of
the limitation. It should be noted that even without such a
provision, a conscious and prudent shipper could declare the nature
and value of its goods and avoid the complications that may arise
as a result of package limitation. Thus, it is only the unwary and in
particular a first time shipper that may fall into the trap. It is,
therefore, advisable and to everyones’ interest to include such a
provision in the future law.
f) The term “package” in the Amharic version of Article 198 should
be expressed by the term “ISHIG” which is closer to the English
term, instead of the term “TIKIL,” which is equivalent to bundles.
g) Though the Ethiopian Shipping Lines has served as the national
carrier for the past 35 years, Ethiopia is not a party to any one of
56
Similar provisions are found in the Commercial Code. See Article 599 (carriage by land) and 643 (1),
(carriage by air).
Art. 599 – Liability not limited in certain cases. The provisions of Art. 594 and 597 [Limitation of liability]
shall not apply where it is proved that damage is due to the carrier’s act or omission and the carrier knew
that such act or omission would or could cause damage. [Art. 643 (1) is almost identical with Art. 599].
the international conventions to date. Despite this fact, bills of

lading issued by the national carrier cite these conventions
particularly the Hague/ Visby Rules (here and there). This,
therefore, indicates that the conventions are applicable in certain
circumstances. If this is so, there is no reason why the country
should not make herself a party to one of the suitable conventions
and apply them to every transaction. As far as choice of
conventions is concerned, it may be argued that there are two
interests that should be placed on the scale. On the one hand, it
may be argued that the Ethiopian Shipping Lines, being the only
national carrier, should be put in an advantageous position at the
cost of cargo interests. On the other hand, since The Ethiopian
Shipping Lines transports not more than 20-30 % of cargoes that
originate from or are destined to the country, the nation has much
interest in cargo than ships. Given these conflicting interests, the
Shipping Lines will be a loser if the country makes herself a party
to the Hamburg Rules. It should, however, be noted that the
Shipping Line accords the benefits of the Hague and Visby Rules
to other shippers and consignees, particularly foreigners whose
laws allow for this benefit. Since the country has much interest in
cargo than ships and since it will not be fair for the Shipping Line
to discriminate between its clients, it will be preferable for the
country to make herself a party to the Hamburg Rules, which are
shipper friendly than the Hague Rules and its amendments.
h) The provisions of the bills of lading, as shown above, lack clarity
and are confusing. It is, therefore, recommended that the Ethiopian
Shipping Lines should redraft its bills in such a way that the
provisions shall become clear and simple to understand.
[is it possible to suggest the way out in the meantime (pending legislative
amendments?]

A Comparative Analysis of Package Limitation .. International Conventions &amp; MARITIME CODE of ETHIOPIA

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

A Comparative Analysis of Package Limitation .. International Conventions &amp; MARITIME CODE of ETHIOPIA

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

www.abyssinialaw.

A Comparative Analysis of Package Limitation under International

The commercial transportation of goods from one place to another, on board

∗Assistant Professor, Faculty of Law, Addis Ababa University.

Package limitation, though an incentive to ship-owners, has failed to serve as

currencies due to inflation and the introduction of containers as a frequent

In light of the above-mentioned situations, this article attempts to shed light

2. THE LEGISLATIVE HISTORY OF PACKAGE LIMITATION.

Sea carriage is by and large international. A ship, though owned by a

In addition to conflict of laws that may be created as a result of contractual

The struggle between the interests of the respective parties demanded a

Accordingly, the instrument put the limitation of liability at £ 100 per

The Convention provided, among others, for: the fixing of package

This declaration if embodied in the bill of lading shall be prima facie

Some writers acclaimed the convention as successful for being based on

By agreement between the carrier, master, or agent of the carrier and

Those contracting states in which the Pound Sterling is not a monetary

Article 4, paragraph 5 shall be deleted and replaced by the following:

1. The unit of account referred to in article 6 of this Convention

Though promulgated in 1978, the Hamburg Rules came into force on

Fund is to be calculated in accordance with the method of valuation

The value of a national currency in terms of the Special Drawing Right

2. Nevertheless, those States which are not members of the International

3. The monetary unit referred to in paragraph 2 of this article

Convention for the Unification of Certain Rules of Law Relating to Bills of

3. PREREQUISITES TO AND MAJOR CHARACTERISTICS OF,

The relationship between shippers and carriers had proved to be a

negligence. 21 However, ship-owners, given their financial might, started to

The above quoted provisions of the different international agreements

3.1 PRECONDITINS TO INVOKE PACKAGE LIMITATION.

3.1.1 EXEMPTION FROM ANY LIABILITY

In addition to these, a carrier can be exempted from liability resulting from

3.1.2 EXCEPTIONS TO THE PRIVILEGE

amount that controls, instead of the statutory package limitation. [Hague

3.1.3 OPPORTUNITY TO DECLARE A HIGHER VALUE.

3.2 MAJOR CHARACTERISTICS

3.2.1 UNITS OF ACCOUNT

b. Under The Hague -Visby Rules, a carrier’s liability is limited to

c. Under the Hamburg Rules, liability is limited to 835 units of account

SDR is a unit of account determined by the I.M.F.

determines the exchange rates of currencies in terms of the SDR

3.2.2 PACKAGES AND OTHER UNITS OF MEASUREMENT

For a long time, it has been debatable whether or not a container is a

is used to consolidate goods, the number of packages or units enumerated in

4. PACKAGE LIMITATION IN ETHIOPIA: THE LAW AND

4.1 SOURCES OF THE LAW.

The drafters as well as the Codification Commission of the Commercial

On Ethiopia’s attitude to conventions of this kind, one might be

On another occasion, in March 1958, Mr. Jauffret made the following

[On] Carriage by air

… most carriage by air is international and, in fact, almost all

Given these conditions, I recommend the adoption of the

4.2 PACKAGE LIMITATION

Hague Rules – Article 4(5)

by the shipper before shipment and inserted in the

The Maritime Code of Ethiopia (1960).

Article 198. Global Statutory Limitation of Liability.

1) In respect of loss or damage to goods, the

2) The statutory limitation shall be determined

3) The statutory limitation may not be setup

Moreover, the term “Packages” mentioned under sub-Article 2 of Article

Neither the carrier nor the ship shall in any event

4.3 THE PRACTICE

4.3.1. Case Reports45

A Comparative Analysis of Package Limitation .. International Conventions & MARITIME CODE of ETHIOPIA

A Comparative Analysis of Package Limitation .. International Conventions & MARITIME CODE of ETHIOPIA