Container Pillaging To Be Investigated

Press, Volume CIX, Issue 32060, 7 August 1969, Page 14

Container Pillaging To Be Investigated

The pillaging of freight from containers, and the question of who should carry the losses, will be investigated by two committees of the Canterbury Chamber of Commerce.

Reporting to the council of the chamber last evening, Mr C. F. Whitty said it was commonly believed that use of containers was a safeguard against pillaging, but this was not the case.

Mr Whitty held up a can-opener valued at $1.85 and said that only 267 had arrived out of a shipment of 580 ordered by a Christchurch firm. The others, he said, might have been pillaged anywhere—at the source or at any port of call.

A Dunedin firm had recently received a container which had been badly pillaged. Mr Whitty said. The shipping company had disclaimed responsibility, saying that it was only the carrier and any claims should be made against the firm which consolidated, or loaded the container.

Another point at issue was whether a container was a single package or a receptacle for the carriage of packages. The shipping companies were liable for a maximum of $2OO for pillaging from a package and there could be any number up to 200 packages or

more in a container, Mr Whitty said. But the shipping companies were arguing that a container and its contents comprised one package and their maximum total liability for a container was $2OO. This argument also was still to be resolved Mr Whitty said, and there was also the matter of rail carriage of containers. Railways liability for pillaging was limited to $lO a package, and if a container was considered a single package what protection did this give? Mr A. G. Williams said that when signing a bill of lading one conceded in writing that the goods were not insured and it was the responsibility of the shippers to insure. Adequate cover could be obtained for a premium of .1 per cent Mr B. J. Drake said that Mr Williams had not answered the points raised by Mr Whitty. It seemed that a radical overhaul was necessary both of our legislation and of

the thinking of insurance companies. The chamber president (Mr R. C. Wallace) said that while the shipping companies endeavoured to contract out of liability for losses, he was not sure that the statutes permitted this. On the motion of Mr Whitty the meeting agreed that the matter should be considered further by the chamber’s transport and legal committees.