lhe Modern Law Review zyxwvuts [Vol. zy 56 zy LEGISLATION The Carriage of Goods by Sea Act 1992 Robert Bradgate* and Fidelma White* Introduction Almost unnoticed - except by specialists in the field of international trade law - the Carriage of Goods by Sea Act 1992 crept onto the statute book last summer. The Act implements recommendations in the Law Commissions’ Report ‘Rights of Suit in Respect of Carriage of Goods by Sea,” and owes its place on the statute book to Lord Goff, who took up the Commissions’ proposals and introduced the Commissions’ draft Bill as a private peer’s measure in the House of Lords. First introduced in February, the Bill was lost on the dissolution of Parliament for the General Election, but was reintroduced in June and, with Government support, completed its passage in almost record time, coming into force on zyx 16 September 1992. In just six sections the Act replaces the Bills of Lading Act 1855, breaking the link between the transfers of property and contractual rights, extending the principle of transfer of contract rights to other carriage documents, resolving the difficulties created by the decision in Grunt v Norwuy2 and allowing regulations to be introduced to deal with the introduction of electronic alternatives to transport documents. We propose to examine the reforms in the new Act against the background of the weaknesses in the old law and alternative reforms which might have been adopted, including the reforms of the doctrine of privity contemplated in the Law Commission’s recent consultation paper.3 Motives for Reform The primary motive for reform was the recognition that, as recent cases showed, English law no longer dealt adequately with the problems created by modern trade and carriage practices, especially where goods were lost or damaged in transit, and that those problems were better dealt with by many other jurisdictions, including those of the United States and some European states, creating a threat that lucrative shipping and insurance business, litigation and arbitration might be lost to the City and the national economy. With this in mind the legislation’s policy foundations are immediately recognisable. First, the legislation should cure the perceived defects in the existing law. Secondly, it should do so in such a way as to satisfy the commer- *Unit for Commercial Law Studies, University of Sheffield. I Law Comm No 196, Scot Law Comm No 130 (HC 250) 1991, following Law Commission Working Paper No 1 12, ‘Rights to Goods in Bulk’ and Scottish Law Commission Discussion Paper 83, ‘Section 16 of the Sale of Goods Act 1979 and Section 1 of the Bills of Lading Act 1855’: see Hudson, ‘Sales from Bulk’ (1989) LMCLQ 420. The final Report was not unanimous: there is a note o f partial dissent from Dr E.M. Clive. 2 (1851) 10 CB 665. 3 Consultation Paper No 121: ‘Privity of Contract: Contracts for the Benefit of Third Parties.’ zy 0 The Modern Law Review Limited 1993 (MLR 56:2, March). Published by Blackwell Publishers, 108 Cowley Road, Oxford OX4 1JF and 238 Main Street, Cambridge, 188 MA 02142, USA.