A clause in a bill of lading stating that the carrier would not be liable for any damage unless the shipper proved negligence or lack of due diligence on the carrier's part was held to be void because ________A.it shifted the burden of proof from the carr

The person who signs the bill of lading without the authority of the Shipowner stating that goods have been shipped，and they have in fact not been shipped at all，______ liable to an indorsee of the bill of lading，who has relied on that statement，for damages for breach of warranty of authority．

A.have

B.has

C.are

D.is

材料：

The shipper shall be deemed to have guaranteed to the carrier the accuracy at the time of shipment of the marks，number，quantity and weight，as furnished by him，and the shipper shall indemnify the carrier against all loss，damages and expenses arising or resulting from inaccuracies in such particulars．The right of the carrier to such indemnity shall in no way limit his responsibility and liability under the contract of carriage to any person other than the shipper．

Unless notice of loss or damage and the general nature of such loss or damage be given before or at the time of the removal of the GOODs into the custody of the person entitled to delivery thereof under the contract of carriage，or，if the loss or damage be not apparent，within three days，such removal shall be prima facie evidence of the delivery by the carrier of the GOODs as described in the bill of lading．

The notice in writing need not be given if the state of the GOODs has，at the time of their receipt，been the subject of joint survey or inspection．

In any event the carrier and the ship shall be discharged from all liability in respect of loss or damage unless suit is brought within one year after delivery of the GOODs or the date when the GOODs should have been delivered. In the case of any actual or apprehended loss or damage the carrier and the receiver shall give all reasonable facilities to each other for inspecting and tallying the GOODs．

问题：

It can be concluded that the purpose of this clause is to protect the interest of ________．

A.ship owners

B.shippers

C.charterers

D.the merchant

The duration of the liability of the carrier or ship in respect of loss of or damage to cargo is ________．A.one year

B.three days

C.not mentioned

D.variable with the kind of cargo carried and the voyage the vessel has completed

This clause is most likely extracted from ________．A.Hague Rules

B.Marpol 73/78

C.SOLAS

D.IMDG Code

It is provided in the clause that ________．A.the shipper shall not indemnify the carrier against all loss，damages and expenses arising or resulting from inaccuracies in particulars concerning cargoes

B.the shipper shall indemnify the carrier against no loss，damage and expense arising or resulting from inaccuracies in particulars concerning cargoes

C.the shipper shall not be deemed to have guaranteed to the carrier the accuracy at the time of shipment of the marks，number，quantity and weight，as furnished by him

D.the shipper shall be deemed to have guaranteed to the carrier the accuracy at the time of shipment of the marks，number，quantity and weight，as furnished by him

请帮忙给出每个问题的正确答案和分析，谢谢！

材料:

Some older decisions have held that the carrier，in order to rebut the presumption of liability resulting from the arrival in damaged condition of GOODs shipped undamaged，must prove not only that the loss or damage was caused by one of the excepted perils，but also that the harm did not result from any negligence on the carrier&39;s part．

Most more recent decisions and authors，however，uphold the view that，in general，the carrier may rebut the claimant&39;s prima facie case simply by proving that the loss was caused by an excepted peril．At that point，the onus switches to the cargo claimant to prove that the true cause of the loss was the carrier&39;s negligence．

Nevertheless certain Hague and Hague/Visby Rules exceptions，expressly or implicitly，also require the carrier to negative its own negligence in proving the exception itself．For example，a clause in the said rules expressly imposes on the carrier the burden of proving that the loss or damage occurred without its actual fault or privity and without any fault or neglect on the part of its servants or agents．

The carrier，however，must truly prove the existence of one or more of the exceptions and their causative role in respect of the loss or damage．Conjectures and speculation do not take the place of hard evidence．A court has held：“Mere speculation will not overcome the prima facie evidence of a clean bill of lading”．

问题：

The carrier will be held liable for the loss or damage if _______．

A.it is proved that he has privity to the loss or damage

B.it is proved that the fault or neglect on his part is not the true cause of the loss or damage

C.it is too onerous for him to demonstrate that the loss or damage is caused by what is beyond his control

D.if there are conjectures and speculation

In accordance with old decisions，the carrier will not be excused unless he has proved that _______．A.not only the loss or damage was caused by one of the excepted perils，but also that the harm did not result from any negligence on the his part

B.the loss or damage was caused by one of the excepted perils

C.the harm did not result from any negligence on his part

D.there are conjectures and speculation

In accordance with most more recent decisions and authors，the carrier will not be excused unless he has proved that _______．A.not only the loss or damage was caused by one of the excepted perils，but also that the harm did not result from any negligence on the his part

B.the loss or damage was caused by one of the excepted perils

C.the harm did not result from any negligence on his part

D.there are conjectures and speculation

It is concluded that _______．A.The carrier is not in a position to prove the loss or damage is substantially caused by one or more of the excepted perils

B.It can not be decided that whether the carrier has to prove the loss or damage is substantially caused by one or more of the excepted perils because there are some differences between the decisions and authors and requirements of Hague and Hague/Visby Rules

C.The carrier does not have to prove the loss or damage is substantially caused by one or more of the excepted perils due to the fact that there are some differences between the decisions and authors and requirements of Hague and Hague/Visby Rules

D.The carrier must truly prove the loss or damage is substantially caused by one or more of the excepted perils even there are some differences between the decisions and authors and requirements of Hague and Hague/Visby Rules

请帮忙给出每个问题的正确答案和分析，谢谢！

材料：

In a bill of lading there might be a clause known as general liberty to carry on deck clause which reads“Carrier has liberty to carry GOODs on deck”．This clause frequently gives the carrier the option of stowing the cargo either on or under deck，while also exempting the carrier from all liability for loss of or damage to cargo stowed on deck．

A clause of this type is an option，not a statement．The problem arises when the bill of lading contains this clause，but the face of the bill of lading does not state that the cargo was loaded on deck．Under such circumstances，it would appear that deck carriage is unjustifiable for at least two reasons：a）The general liberty to carry on deck clause is merely an option to carry on deck，a choice which the carrier ordinarily does not make．If the bill of lading does not bear a statement on its face giving notice that the cargo is actually stowed on deck，then by default the option has been exercised in favour of under deck carriage．b）The typewritten or handwritten wording on the face of a bill of lading has precedence over the bill&39;s printed clauses．And a clean bill of lading，because it implies under-deck stowage，is functionally equivalent to a typewritten or handwritten notation on the face of the document calling for carriage below deck．A clean bill of lading therefore overrides the printed liberty to carry on deck clause．

A general deck carriage clause without a statement on the face of the bill of lading that cargo is carried on deck is merely an option not exercised and the deck carriage is therefore a fundamental breach of the contract and the Rules．

问题：

A clause which reads“Carrier has liberty to carry GOODs on deck”contained in B/L is ________．

A.a statement

B.a problem

C.an option

D.a typewritten or handwritten wording on its face

If there is no deck stowage statement on the face of B/L，it is implied that ________．A.all cargoes are stowed under deck

B.all cargoes are stowed on deck

C.cargoes are stowed either on or under deck

D.it can not be decided whether cargoes are stowed on or under deck

If a handwritten wording on the face of B/L is in conflict with one of its printed clause，________．A.the handwritten wording shall prevail

B.the printed clause shall prevail

C.both the handwritten wording and the printed clause shall be ignored

D.the B/L shall become null and void

The deck carriage is justifiable only when ________．A.there is a general liberty to carry on deck clause in the B/L and a statement on its face that the cargo is actually stowed on deck

B.there is either a general liberty to carry on deck clause in the B/L or a statement on its face that the cargo is actually stowed on deck

C.there is neither general liberty to carry on deck clause in the B/L nor a statement on its face that the cargo is actually stowed on deck

D.only when the carrier is exempted from all liability for loss of or damage to cargo stowed on deck

请帮忙给出每个问题的正确答案和分析，谢谢！

材料：

The endorsement of a nonnegotiable bill does not make the bill negotiable or give the transferee any additional right．A person to whom a nonnegotiable bill has been transferred by delivery and agreement to transfer title to the bill or to the GOODs which it represents acquires the title to the GOODs as against the transferor．The transferee may also notify the carrier of the transfer to him，and the carrier is then obligated directly to the transferee for any obligations the carrier owed to the transferor immediately before the notification．

More specifically，the carrier is liable to the owner of GOODs transported under a nonnegotiable bill，subject to the right of stoppage in transit．Besides having to be the owner of the GOODs covered by the nonnegotiable bill，the claimant in such a case must have actually relied in GOOD faith on statements made by the carrier on the bill．The carrier is liable for having stated on the bill that he received GOODs when in fact he had not，and for having delivered the GOODs in a quantity，kind，weight or condition other than as stated on the bill．

In general，the carrier must deliver the GOODs on demand of the consignee named in a nonnegotiable bill of lading．However，on the endorsement of a nonnegotiable bill，the GOODs may be delivered to a party entitled to their possession．The carrier is liable toward the person having title to，or a right to possession of，the GOODs for delivering them to a party not entitled to their possession．

问题：

The endorsement of a nonnegotiable bill transfers ________．

A.the title to the GOODs from the transferor to the transferee

B.the title to the GOODs from the transferee to the transferor

C.in no way the title to the GOODs from the transferor to the transferee

D.the GOODs to the party entitled to their possession

The transferee of a nonnegotiable bill acquires the title to the GOODs ________．A.by taking delivery of the bill and entering into an agreement to transfer title to the bill or to the GOODs

B.by having the carrier actually delivered the GOODs to him

C.by having the transferor endorsed the nonnegotiable bill

D.in no way

If the GOODs were thus transferred，and the carrier delivered the GOODs in a quantity，kind，weight or condition other than as stated on the bill，________．A.he is liable

B.he is not liable

C.it can not be determined whether he is liable or not

D.whether he is liable or not is to be determined by the law of the ship’s flag

In the event of a nonnegotiable bill has been actually transferred，if the carrier stated on the bill that he received GOODs when in fact he had not，________ is liable．A.he

B.the transferor

C.the transferee

D.the person having title to，or a right to possession of，the GOODs

请帮忙给出每个问题的正确答案和分析，谢谢！

材料：

As with the duties of loading and stowing of the carrier under Hague Rules and national statutes incorporating one or other of those Rules，there is a difference of opinion as to whether the carrier may validly delegate its responsibility for discharging the cargo to another party，notably to the consignee．Despite some lower court expressions to the contrary，the more prevalent view is that loading，stowing and discharging are “non-delegable”obligations of the carrier of GOODs by sea.

In consequence，while it may be permissible to transfer the responsibility for paying for loading，stowing and discharging to the shipper or consignee（e．g．by inserting an“FIOST”clause in the bill of lading），this or any other clauses which purport to also transfer the liability for fault or negligence in the conduct of these operations from the carrier to cargo are null and void，because they relieve or lessen the carrier&39;s obligations otherwise than as permitted by the Act．

This position is well-founded，given the fundamental purpose of the Rules and the national statutes of protecting shippers and consignees against the superior bargaining power of carriers．While acceptable in charterparties，which are contracts of private carriage，such clauses are rightly set aside by courts in carriage under bills of lading．

问题：

According to this passage，“FIOST”clause in the bill of lading is ______．

A.not accepted by courts

B.acceptable in courts

C.a non-delegable clause in the bill of lading

D.incorporated in the bill of lading to avoid superior bargaining by the carrier against the receiver

The prevalent view is that ______．A.the carrier may validly delegate its responsibility for discharging the cargo to another party

B.whether the carrier may validly delegate its responsibility for discharging the cargo to another party is still in dispute

C.it is not necessary to consider whether the carrier may validly delegate its responsibility for discharging the cargo to another party

D.the carrier may mot validly delegate its responsibility for discharging the cargo to another party

It can be inferred that the author ______ the opinion that the carrier may validly delegate its responsibility for discharging the cargo to another party．A.supports

B.does not support

C.has not indicated whether he supports or not

D.has no interest in discussing

In the eyes of law，an“FIOST”clause in the bill of lading ______．A.does not transfer the responsibility for paying for loading，stowing and discharging to the shipper or consignee

B.has nothing to do with the responsibility of the carrier

C.relieves or lessens the carrier's obligations otherwise than as permitted by the Act

D.imposes more obligations to the carrier than as permitted by the Act

请帮忙给出每个问题的正确答案和分析，谢谢！

材料：

When a clean bill of lading has been issued，estoppel arises or，in other words，the carrier is prevented from proving，as against a third party relying on the clean bill of lading，that there was any thing wrong．In the case of inherent vice，however，which is a natural defect in the thing shipped，the carrier is not estopped by his clean bill of lading，because a clean bill of lading，in stating that a certain cargo is on board，gives sufficient notice that this cargo，in the natural course of events，may have certain qualities or defects which all similar cargo normally has．For example，a cargo of flour will shrink slightly，and this fact does not have to be noted on the face of the bill of lading．

Similarly，where cargo is unfit to withstand the ordinary incidents of the contractual voyage contemplated by the parties，owing to some inherent vice or hidden defect presented within it，the carrier is not estopped by the clean bill of lading from asserting the inherent defect exception，provided that the damage has not been aggravated by any conduct of the carrier or those for whom he is responsible．

The carrier issuing a clean bill of lading is only bound by his statements as to the outward condition of the cargo and is therefore not estopped from proving inherent vice or hidden defect when that vice or defect was not apparent at the time of shipment．In other words，a clean bill of lading does not necessarily fulfill the shipper&39;s burden of proof in respect to inherent vice or hidden defect．

问题：

The slight shrinkage of flour is ________．

A.an inherent defect of the cargo

B.a damage which is always aggravated by the conduct of carrier

C.a vice or defect which should be noted on face of B/L due to the fact that it is not apparent at the time of shipment

D.an outward condition of the cargo

The carrier issuing a clean bill of lading will only be bound by ________．A.any thing wrong in the natural course of events

B.the conduct of the carrier or those for whom he is responsible

C.inherent vice or hidden defect presented within the cargo

D.the apparent order and condition of the cargo

Of the following，________ in the cargo shipped on board his vessel should be considered as a thing that will give rise to estoppel on the part of the carrier．A.ordinary incident

B.hidden defect

C.inherent vice

D.inherent defect

It is concluded that on issuing a clean bill of lading，the carrier ________．A.indicates that the cargo is unfit to withstand the ordinary incidents of the contractual voyage contemplated by the parties

B.gives sufficient notice that this cargo has no defects which all similar cargo normally has

C.will be prevented from proving there is any natural defect in the thing shipped

D.will not be estopped from proving inherent vice or hidden defect when that vice or defect was not apparent at the time of shipment

请帮忙给出每个问题的正确答案和分析，谢谢！