Opinion ID: 591394
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The Status of Exim

Text: 12 Dimsa argues that the Supreme Court sub silentio overruled Exim in Chan v. Korean Air Lines, Ltd., 490 U.S. 122, 109 S.Ct. 1676, 104 L.Ed.2d 113 (1989). Dimsa also points us to our own post-Chan decision in Victoria Sales Corp. v. Emery Air Freight, Inc., 917 F.2d 705 (2d Cir.1990), as further support for the proposition that Exim is no longer good law. Chan addressed a question regarding the required form of a passenger ticket under the Warsaw Convention, as modified by the Montreal Agreement. Chan, 490 U.S. at 125-26, 109 S.Ct. at 1679-80. The focus of the case was whether Article 3 of the Convention permitted a carrier to retain the benefit of limited liability after delivering a passenger ticket with undersized typeface. Id. at 126-28, 109 S.Ct. at 1679-81. The Supreme Court ruled that the carrier was entitled to limited liability, reasoning that the plain language of Article 3 dictated the result. Id. at 128-29, 109 S.Ct. at 1680-81. Chan also compared the liability limitation scheme of Article 3 with the schemes of Article 4 (limiting the carrier's liability for lost luggage if a baggage claim check is delivered to the passenger) and of Articles 8 and 9. The Court noted that all the Articles provide ... that if the relevant document (ticket, baggage check or air waybill) has not been delivered (or, in the case of air waybill, 'made out'), the carrier 'shall not be entitled to avail himself of the provisions of this convention which exclude or limit his liability.'  Id. at 131, 109 S.Ct. at 1682. The Court then explained the crucial distinction between the provisions of Article 3 and the provisions of Articles 4, 8 and 9: But, unlike [Article 3, the other Articles] specifically impose the latter sanction [i.e. removal of limited liability] for failure to include in the documents certain particulars.... Id. The differing language of Article 3 indicated to the Court that the Convention did not intend for the delivery of a passenger ticket with undersized typeface to affect the limit on recovery. Id. at 132-33, 109 S.Ct. at 1683. 13 Like Chan, Victoria Sales dealt with the interpretation of an Article not implicated here. There, transported goods were lost at the carrier's warehouse, some distance from the airport. Victoria Sales, 917 F.2d at 707. The carrier argued that under the Convention it should be entitled to limit its liability for the loss. Interpreting Article 18, the majority concluded that limited liability could only be invoked for losses or damage occurring within the physical confines of the airport. Id. at 707-08. The majority rejected the idea that Article 18 must be viewed in the light of modern commercial realities and held that the plain language of Article 18 permits a carrier to limit liability only as to events occurring on airport grounds. Id. at 707. 14 Obviously, neither of these cases directly overrules Exim. Both interpreted other provisions of the Convention and did not address either Articles 8 and 9 or Exim 's holding. While Chan did compare Article 3 to Articles 8 and 9 for purposes of elucidating Article 3, Chan, 490 U.S. at 130-33, 109 S.Ct. at 1681-83, the discussion did not relate to the issue of which particulars must be stated in a waybill or refer to Exim. In Victoria Sales, the majority opinion did not discuss the meaning of Articles 8 and 9 or allude to Exim. Victoria Sales, 917 F.2d at 706-08. The only mention of Exim in either case comes in Judge Van Graafeiland's partial dissent in Victoria Sales. In connection with his analysis of the case, Judge Van Graafeiland examined Chan 's holding and specifically concluded that Chan did not overrule Exim. Id. at 711-12 (Van Graafeiland, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part). 15 Dimsa's argument that Exim was overruled focuses on the general principle of treaty interpretation invoked in both Chan and Victoria Sales: that a treaty should be interpreted according to its plain language. Chan, 490 U.S. at 134, 109 S.Ct. at 1683-84 (where the text is clear, as it is here, we have no power to insert an amendment); Victoria Sales, 917 F.2d at 707 (when the text of a treaty is clear, a court shall not, through interpretation, alter or amend the treaty) (citing Chan ). Dimsa argues that Exim violated this maxim of treaty interpretation by engrafting the condition that to be required in the waybill the particulars must be commercially substantial or significant and prejudicial, thereby impermissibly amending the Convention. This argument flows from Dimsa's interpretation of subsections (h) and (i) and its claim that its interpretation arises from the clear and unambiguous text of the subsections. Thus, Dimsa argues that Exim is in conflict with the holdings in Chan and Victoria Sales because Exim found the clear language of Article 8 to be ambiguous. 16 According to the rule in Chan, the plain language of a treaty must be followed, but only if the language is unambiguous or if the plain meaning does not produce necessarily absurd results. Chan, 490 U.S. at 130, 134, 109 S.Ct. at 1681-82, 1683. The rule recognizes that treaties, like other documents, occasionally are not drafted with such clarity as to remove all ambiguity or doubt as to the meaning of certain provisions. In such instances, it is entirely appropriate to look beyond the written words in order to divine the meaning of the ambiguous provision. Eastern Airlines, Inc. v. Floyd, --- U.S. ----, ----, 111 S.Ct. 1489, 1493, 113 L.Ed.2d 569 (1991) (quoting Air France v. Saks, 470 U.S. 392, 396, 105 S.Ct. 1338, 1341, 84 L.Ed.2d 289 (1985) (quoting Choctaw Nation of Indians v. United States, 318 U.S. 423, 431-32, 63 S.Ct. 672, 678, 87 L.Ed. 877 (1943))). Thus, other rules of construction may be utilized to illuminate such passages. Id. (quoting Volkswagenwerk Aktiengesellschaft v. Schlunk, 486 U.S. 694, 700, 108 S.Ct. 2104, 2108, 100 L.Ed.2d 722 (1988)). It must also be kept in mind that [t]reaties are construed more liberally than private agreements, Saks, 470 U.S. at 396, 105 S.Ct. at 1341 (quotation omitted), and that the opinions of our sister signatories [interpreting the Convention are] entitled to considerable weight, Saks, 470 U.S. at 404, 105 S.Ct. at 1345 (quotation omitted); see Floyd, --- U.S. at ----, 111 S.Ct. at 1493. 17 In light of these principles of treaty interpretation, Chan and Victoria Sales do not dictate a result contrary to Exim. Exim held that subsections (h) and (i) are ambiguous, and we therefore applied interpretive techniques to give them meaning. Exim, 754 F.2d at 108. The result rested not only on our own finding of ambiguity and construction of the subsections, but also on the holdings of British, Swiss, and Dutch courts. Id. (citing Corocraft Ltd. v. Pan American Airways, Inc., [1969] 1 Q.B. 616; Dico Handel-en Industrie Mij. N.V. v. Garuda Indonesian Airways, P.N., No. 83 Schip en Schade 1970, 199 (Dist.Ct. Amsterdam, Oct. 29, 1969); Black Sea & Baltic General Ins. Co. v. Scandinavian Airlines System (Zurich High Court, 2d Civ. Chamber Mar. 4, 1966)). These are the courts of nations which are parties to the Convention, and we give their constructions considerable weight. Saks, 470 U.S. at 404, 105 S.Ct. at 1345. 18 Even were we free to disregard this overwhelming precedent, we would not do so here, because even a cursory review of the original French text and its translation exposes the ambiguity recognized by Exim and the foreign courts. We turn first to the original French version of the Convention which, as the only authentic version, must guide any analysis. Floyd, --- U.S. at ----, 111 S.Ct. at 1493; Saks, 470 U.S. at 397, 105 S.Ct. at 1341. Subsection (h), in the original French, states that the waybill shall contain le nombre, le mode d'emballage, les marques particulieres ou les numeros des colis. The unofficial American translation reads The number of packages, the method of packing, and the particular marks or numbers upon them. Notable in a comparison of the two is the American version's addition of the word and after the word packing,. Subsection (i) in the original requires the listing of le poids, la quantite, le volume ou les dimensions de la marchandise. As translated, the subsection reads The weight, the quantity, the volume, or dimensions of the goods. Here the American version adds a comma after volume and deletes the word the before the word dimensions. 19 This comparison makes the ambiguity apparent. First, the original French can be read either disjunctively or conjunctively as is evidenced by the subsection (h) translation's addition of the word and after the second particular, something not done in the translation of subsection (i). Further confusion over disjunctive versus conjunctive use is evident from the British translation, which adds the word and after the second particular in both subsections. Corocraft Ltd. v. Pan American Airways, [1969] 1 Q.B. 616, 650. This difference from the American translation highlights the difficulty of determining the proper meaning of the French. Additionally, a literal translation of the French supports a strictly disjunctive reading because of the lack of the word and within either string, the use of the word or at the end of the list, and the fact that each particular is preceded by the French equivalent of the word the in the original. The strict disjunctive interpretation of the French text, which finds support from Professor Drion in his treatise on the Convention, see H. Drion, Limitation of Liabilities in International Air Law 311 (1954), was rejected in Corocraft in favor of requiring inclusion of only the commercially substantial particulars. Corocraft, [1969] 1 Q.B. at 654. 20 Further illustrating the ambiguity of the relevant provisions, Dimsa translates these subsections to mean that to conform with Article 8, a waybill must contain each of the first two particulars stated in each subsection and then a choice between the remaining two particulars in each subsection. Thus, according to Dimsa the subsections should be read as follows: (h) The number of packages and the method of packing and either the particular marks or numbers upon them; (i) The weight and the quantity and either the volume or dimensions of the goods. We see no direct support for this reading, and it is not the most natural interpretation of the French. The ability to derive these myriad interpretations from the original French reinforces Exim's conclusion that subsections (h) and (i) are ambiguous. We note that Exim's resolution of the ambiguity gives meaning to the subsections by recognizing the importance of the different particulars in different contexts such that all are used, depending on the situation. 21 Even after Chan, the Supreme Court has recognized that certain provisions of the Convention are unclear. Floyd, --- U.S. at ---- - ----, 111 S.Ct. at 1493-1501 (phrase lesion corporelle held ambiguous, so treaty interpretation techniques used). Cf. Chan, 490 U.S. at 134, 109 S.Ct. at 1683-84 (interpretive methods may of course be consulted to elucidate a text that is ambiguous). We find no distinction between the process utilized in Floyd and that used in Exim and the cases on which Exim relied. See Buonocore v. Trans World Airlines, Inc., 900 F.2d 8 (2d Cir.1990) (reaffirming, after Chan, holding in Day v. Trans World Airlines, Inc., 528 F.2d 31 (2d Cir.1975), cert. denied, 429 U.S. 890, 97 S.Ct. 246, 50 L.Ed.2d 172 (1976), that portion of Article 17 is ambiguous, and applying test set forth in Day to determine whether passenger was in the course of any of the operations of embarking or disembarking). There being no basis for Dimsa's claims that the language of subsections (h) and (i) is clear or that Exim was overruled, we abide by Exim's holding that unless omission of a particular is commercially substantial or significant and prejudicial to the consignor, it need not be included in the air waybill for the carrier to avail itself of Article 22(2)'s limitation on liability. 22