§ Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
§ 4.1 p.m.
§ Mr. FootI would like to follow up the point that I put just now to the Solicitor-General. The hon. and learned Gentleman's view was that, where the goods had been destroyed or damaged by war, the bailee was relieved of all liability in relation to the goods. We have had very short time in which to consider the Bill, but it seems to me that on the face of it there is something of a flaw in the Bill. The bailee should take reasonable care to safeguard against war damage the goods which are in his possession. Obviously there are steps that could be taken in order to give reasonable protection to the goods, and surely the bailee might be expected to take them.
§ 4.2 p.m.
§ The Solicitor-GeneralWhat the hon. Gentleman suggests is a re-writing of the contract. That is the very thing that not only the Uthwatt Committee, but the committee that considered this subject-matter during the last War, thought was most undesirable. At any rate let the contract stand and provide that the loss or damage is due to war, but do not seek so to re-write the contract as to impose on the bailee a totally new obligation. What the hon. Gentleman wants to do is to read into the contract an obligation to do something to protect against war damage.
§ Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.
§ Clauses 2 and 3 ordered to stand part of the Bill.