cropper's column
Page 52
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
Conditions of carriage
• The RHA still sets its name to two sets of Conditions of Carriage: those of 1961 were not completely replaced and superseded by the later edition of 1967 Islightly revised 1971). it is true that the 1967 set have been subsequently modified by amendments of 1971, so their correct title is now: RBA Conditions of Carriage 1967. Modified 1971.
The prospects of effective application of Conditions of Carriage will be substantially increased when one set alone is recognized with, I hope, BRS applying an identical set. This would assist the contention that 0 customers should have been aware of the precise terms of the Conditions and help to avoid cases where customers claim lack of knowledge of the Conditions applicable. This objective is .still a long way off, if only because many firms besides BRS continue to use their own Conditions, or adopt the RHA set but with some modifications.
The 1961 Conditions have survived mainly because of the clamour from the insurance world at the time of the announcement of the 1967 Conditions; the insurers affirmed that the too generous 1967 Conditions opened the door too widely on the admissibility of claims. The insurers indicated that insurance premiums for goods in transit must rise substantially, probably 50 per cent.
The Conditions were changed in 1967 in order to bring them more into line with those of BRS Conditions. The main difference between 1961 Conditions on the one hand, and 1967 and BRS on the other, lies in the method of dealing with the theft risk. The clauses of the 1967 Conditions were shorter and therefore more readable, and expressed in a positive sense rather than negatively. Clause 11 of the 1967 Conditions deals with liability for loss and damage. It reads: "Subject to these Conditions of Carriage the Carrier shag be liable for any loss, or misdelivery of, or damage to goods occasioned during transit
unless the Carrier shall prove . . ." Under the 1961 Conditions, the position is that the -carrier shall not be liable . . except upon
proof that the loss, damage, etc . . was solely due to the wilful negligence of the carrier's servants".
Many RHA members felt the new Conditions were fairer to customers, and removed a competitive disadvantage compared to British Road Services as BRS had already adopted this form of wording.
Other RHA members in 1967/68 whose customers were still happy to accept the more restrictive 1961 Conditions saw no good reason to increase their insurance problems.
But today the matter needs reassessing. The insurance world is no longer so alarmed at the increased extent of liability under 1967 Conditions. My inquiries reveal that a modest five or 10 per cent increase in premiums may face hauliers who changed to the 1967 Conditions. The time has probably come when hauliers should allow the 1961 Conditions to go into "limboland". At least that is what my own company, Conquers Transport Ltd, is now doing. Another small step towards uniformity
of Conditions. Ralph Cropper