The Hague Rules are not specific as to who is the carrier or who is responsible for loss or damage to cargo. The carrier is merely defined at art. 1(a) as including “the owner or the charterer who enters into a contract of carriage with a shipper.” In consequence, the cargo claimant usually has difficulty in deciding against whom he should take suit. The difficulty is compounded because the carrier is rarely identified in the bills of lading, which are often issued bearing the names of the charterers or even some vague body such as the “X, Y, Z Line.” The line may be only a name used for publicity purposes, or it may be a sole proprietorship, or a partnership or, on occasion, even a corporation. The bill of lading is issued by the master or by someone “for the master” and this normally binds the owners of the vessel, but here again the identity of the carrier is often unclear.

The claimant can usually bring suit for breach of contract as well as in delict or in tort. In some jurisdictions, actions in tort and contract can be joined. From all these recourses, the cargo claimant must make his choice. Usually it is safest to bring suit against all parties and to sue both in breach of contract as well as in tort.

The bill of lading is signed by the master or on his behalf and such a bill of lading normally binds the owner of the vessel for whom the master acts. The only exception appears to be the case where the master is employed directly by a demise charterer. This does not, however, exclude an action in rem against the vessel.

Even when the charterer signs as agent for the master the owner is still bound, because the master is the employee or, in effect, “préposé” or agent of the owner. This seems to be true even when the name of the charterer appears on the head of the bill of lading, as was held by the Supreme Court of Canada in Paterson S.S. Ltd. v. Aluminium Co.1 This was also the position taken by Brandon, J., in The Berkshire.2

In both the Paterson S.S. Ltd. and The Berkshire cases the owner knew of the charterer’s practice of issuing master’s bills of lading on charterer’s bill of lading forms. And, in effect, this is the usual practice in most world shipping, so that cases of the owner not being apprised are rare. In The Sea Star,3 clean-on-board “master’s” bills of lading were issued by the charterer against a letter of indemnity without authority from the owner. It was held by the United States Court of Appeals that there was no