This makes it difficult to link the obligation with a strict liability.

A strict liability is considered to put too much burden on the shipper.

To impose strict liability in respect of all significant damage therefore seemed very sweeping.

According to variant B, only the timeliness, accuracy and completeness is covered by the strict liability.

Other delegations considered the proposed strict liability regime to be inflexible and not entirely consistent with current practice.

It was suggested that the approaches of certain treaties that combined strict and fault liability should be followed.

It was also noted that in existing regimes, strict liability seemed to be limited to certain hazardous activities.

A strict liability that covers most of the obligations in article 30 would put too much burden on the shipper, taking into account that the carrier's liability is based on negligence.

The shipper will in that situation have a strict liability for providing the information in article 30 (b) and (c).

Another issue is that the information actually provided must be accurate and that the shipper will have a strict liability for this.

Whether the strict liability should cover the obligation to provide the information in article 30 (b) and (c) is a matter of policy.

However, it could be argued that this is already covered by the liability for providing inaccurate information in article 30, especially the proposed paragraph 2 where the liability is strict regarding information which is provided by the shipper.

Or, drawing this line further, to any breach of obligation under the draft Convention to the extent that the shipper's liability is not dealt with otherwise (such as the strict liability under paragraph 31(2) (previously 29(2))?

Paragraph 2 then modifies the paragraph 1 by saying that for breach of its obligations under paragraphs 30 (b) and (c), the shipper has strict liability.

Some delegations have during the negotiations emphasized the importance of having a strict liability linked to the obligation in paragraph (b) and (c), especially paragraph (b).

In relation to article 57(4), it has been discussed whether the liability for failure by the carrier to comply with instructions given should be strict and unlimited or, whether on a true construction of the provision, the liability was a due diligence liability in the same way as liability for loss of or damage to cargo, and also limited in the same way.

It was also observed that treaty practice provided limited exceptions to strict liability such as armed conflict, force majeure or compliance with a compulsory public measure, etc.

And finally some delegations have emphasized that strict liability should cover not only the accuracy and completeness of the information, but also the obligation to provide it.

The liability for the description of the goods would then become a strict one according to 31(2) On the other hand some delegations have stated that the liability for breach of the article 30 ought to be entirely based on negligence.

Such a strict liability regime was in keeping with the polluter pays principle and was beneficial for victims of hazardous activities since it relieved them of the burden of proving fault.

The difference between variant A and B is here that according to variant A the strict liability comprises the obligation to provide this information, as well as its accuracy and completeness.

In paragraph 2 in the alternative text, the shipper has a strict liability for the information that he provides, unless the carrier or anyone for whom it is responsible caused the inaccuracy.

Liability insurance

Such liability is incurred without prejudice to the criminal liability of individuals having committed the offences.

Criminal liability of migrants

Liability of legal persons

Liability of the Tribunal

J. Question of liability

(c) Corruption and criminal liability

He's not very strict about this.

Tom isn't very strict about it.

3. Such liability shall be without prejudice to the criminal liability of the natural persons who have committed the offences.

3. Such liability shall be without prejudice to the criminal liability of the natural persons who have committed the offences.

Lynn Verinsky Because of liability insurance.

Requiring personal financial liability of staff

Liability for intentional or reckless behaviour

It's important to follow a strict diet.

Don't be too strict. They're just kids.

The contest has very strict eligibility requirements.

The contest has very strict eligibility requirements.

Where an enterprise makes substantial revisions to some or all of the contractual stipulations of the existing financial liability, it shall terminated the recognition of the existing financial liability or part of it, and at the same time recognize the financial liability after revising the contractual stipulations as a new financial liability.

(a) Obligations stipulated in Article 13 (1)(a) and (b) and liability arising from the breach thereof or limitation of that liability

Article 27Where an enterprise (debtor) enters into an agreement with a creditor so as to substitute the existing financial liabilities by way of any new financial liability, and if the contractual stipulations regarding the new financial liability is substantially different from that regarding the existing financial liability, it shall terminate the recognition of the existing financial liability, and shall at the same time recognize the new financial liability.

3 failure to discharge due liability or

a stock company with limited liability or