Court Opinion

ID: 9842867
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-24 02:20:18.582124+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:14:00.989788
License: Public Domain

MOORE, Circuit Judge
(concurring in the result).
I concur in the result and in the majority opinion except as herein qualified. The terms of the bill of lading clarifying and giving a more specific meaning to the word “package” are not “repugnant” to the Act. The word “package” in the *499Act is neither self-defining nor a word of art. The clauses of the bill and of the Act can be read together and the true intent of the parties as to their understanding of “package” thereby be obtained.
For the reasons stated in my opinion in Gulf Italia Company v. American Export lines, Inc. I believe that the phrase “customary freight unit” as used in the Act would have applied in this case to the yacht as a whole, rather than to the units of measure used in calculating the freight charged. Since the Act provides a $500 limit of liability “per package * * * or in case of goods not shipped in packages, per customary freight unit * * phg result which I would reach in this case is the same whether the Act or the specific definition of “package” is applied. Had Congress intended to extend this limitation only to the unit used in calculating freight rate charges it would have been very simple to have so phrased the statute.