1. Twenty Foot Equivalent Unit. The TEU, together with the FEU (Forty Foot Equivalent Unit) are the standard size containers in use worldwide.
  2. Lloyds List No. 56.766, Monday September 22 1997.
  3. Lloyds List Africa Weekly, Friday November 14 1997.
  4. This aspect of containerization is regulated by the International Convention for Safe Containers adopted in Geneva in 1972 which became law in South Africa through the International Convention for Safe Containers Act No. 11 of 1985.
  5. Airlines usually use smaller, lighter containers, though wide bodied aircraft can take standard TEU containers.
  6. Act 105 of 1983.
  7. AJRA, Sec. 1. (1) (g)
  8. AJRA, Sec. 1. (1) (h)
  9. AJRA, Sec. 1. (1) (i)
  10. Forsyth, C.F. Private International Law, Juta & Co, 3rd edition, 1996.
  11. Scrutton, 20th Edition. P. 413 see also The Hollandia [1983] 1 AC 327
  12. Admiralty Court Act, 1861. (paraphrased)
  13. Aegean Sun v Caisse Generale Aif de Prix 1982 (4) 639 CPD
  14. The Danzig 1863 Br & L 102 quoted in the Aegean Sun.
  15. Encyclopedia Britannica v. The Hong Kong Producer [ 1969] Lloyds Rep. 536
  16. Du Pont de Nemours v. S.S.Mormacvega [1984] 1 Lloyds Rep. 296.
  17. J. Evans & Sons (Portsmouth) Ltd v. Andrea Merzario Ltd. [1975] 1 Lloyds Rep. 162
  18. Svenska Tractor 1953 2 KB 300
  19. Act 1 of 1986.
  20. COGSA sec. 1.d. (paraphrased)
  21. COGSA sec. 1.b.
  22. Staniland, H. The new Carriage of Goods by Sea Act in South Africa, LMCQ, 1987, p. 305.
  23. This is the type of situation which can arise if the initial carrier contracts as agent of the consignor.
  24. 1980 Multimodal Convention, art 1.1.
  25. E. Clements Horst v Biddel Bros [1912] AC 18 HL
  26. For reasoning see page 15.
  27. Sanders Bros v Maclean (1883) 11 QBD 327 @ 341
  28. Scrutton, 20th edition. P. 185
  29. E. Clements Horst v Biddel Bros [1912] AC 18 HL
  30. Diamond Alkali Export Corp v. Fl. Bourgeois [1921] 3 K.B. 443.
  31. (1787) 2 T.R. 63; reversed (1790) H.Bl. 357, but restored by the House of Lords (1793) 2 H.Bl. 211.
  32. Guest, A.G. Benjamin's Sale of Goods, Sweet & Maxwell, 1992 p.1357.
  33. De Wit, R. Multimodal Transport, LLP, 1995, p. 310.
  34. Article III 3 (paraphrased)
  35. De Wit, R. Multimodal Transport, LLP, 1995, p. 287
  36. Tetley p. 215
  37. South Africa did the same with COGSA 1986.
  38. Roll on Roll off ships are common on short sea routes such as Dover to Calais.
  39. De Wit P. 123
  40. Payne & Ivamy P. 121
  41. Brandt v Liverpool, Brazil and River Plate Steam Navigation Co. [1924] 1 KB 575
  42. Bills of Lading Act 1855 Section 1 (my emphasis)
  43. The Delfini [1988] 2 Lloyd's Rep 599
  44. The Elafi [1981] 2 Lloyds Rep. 679
  45. I.E. Hague Visby Rules Article III 8.
  46. General Law Amendment Act, 1992.
  47. Act No.17 of 1946.
  48. South Africa does not transport goods via a system of inland waterways.
  49. Sec. 1. read together with Art. XX.
  50. Art. 1.(b). Though it is submitted by Scrutton that the reference in 4.2.(c) to other navigable waters indicates that carriage by sea includes "carriage on rivers and other waters where great ships go." P.423
  51. Art. 3.1. & 4.2.
  52. Art. 3.8.
  53. Gold Francs were replaced by SDR's in the 1979 Protocol, which became law in South Africa by virtue of the Shipping General Law Amendment Act of 1997.
  54. Art 4.5.
  55. Art 3.6.
  56. Not on a ship owned either in part or wholly by a South African company.
  57. See page 26.
  58. Art. 1.1.
  59. Art 17.1 & 18.1
  60. Art 17.2
  61. Art 23.3
  62. Art 24
  63. Art 32.1
  64. Art 1.1
  65. Art 11.4
  66. Art 35 & 36
  67. De Wit, R. Multimodal Transport, LLP, 1995. P. 31
  68. Bamford, 3rd Edition. P. 101.
  69. Anderson Shipping (Pty) Ltd v Polysius (Pty) Ltd 1995 (3) SA 42 AD p.50
  70. The South African conflict of laws rules do not provide for the application of laws other than the law of the forum and the proper law of the contract. See Forsyth C.F. Private International Law. P. 61
  71. Transol Bunker B.V. v m.v. Andrico Unity and Others 1989 (4) SA 325
  72. De Wit, R. Multimodal Transport, LLP, 1995, p. 138.
  73. De Wit, R. Multimodal Transport, LLP, 1995, p.142.
  74. Rule 11 & Rule 12
  75. UNCTAD/ICC Rules for Multimodal Transport Documents ICC Publication No. 481
  76. Rule 1.1.
  77. Rule 1.2.
  78. Rule 5.1.
  79. Rule 5.4.
  80. Rule 6.1.
  81. Rule 6.3.
  82. Rule 6.5.
  83. Rule 7.
  84. Tetley, W. Marine Cargo Claims, 3rd Edition. P. 937.
  85. 30 states are required to ratify the Convention - Art 36.
  86. Mankabady, S. The Multimodal Transport of Goods Convention: A Challenge to Unimodal Transport Conventions. International and Comparative Law Quarterly, Vol. 32, January 1983. P. 120.
  87. In reality cargo underwriters pay for cargo damage. Underwriters then attempt to recover on the subrogated rights of claim. If the underwriter cannot recover, the loss is passed on to the merchant by way of increased insurance premiums.
  88. As opposed to the situation where a freight forwarder acting as agent arranges the different legs of the carriage with different carriers
  89. South Africa has no mandatory land carriage regimes bar the UK COGRA which applies certain circumstances.
  90. The Natal Mercury, 6 February 1998.
  91. Portnet's statistics for 1997.