Practice question
A carrier claims an entire cargo loss came from inherent vice. Evidence establishes that vice caused deterioration of one segregated portion, while a separate carrier-handling event damaged the remainder. Which analysis is correct?
- Treat the presence of any vice as complete immunity.
- Apply the inherent-vice defense only to the portion proved attributable to it and assess the remainder separately.
- Reject the treaty entirely because two causes exist.
- Award the whole declared value without proof of actual damage.
- Apply the passenger advance-payment provision instead.
Legal references
- Montreal Convention 1999, authentic treaty text, Articles 18, 20-21 and 25-28, UN Treaty Series volume 2242, No. 39917: https://treaties.un.org/doc/Publication/UNTS/Volume%202242/v2242.pdf
- ICAO, Montreal Convention administrative package, revised limits effective December 28, 2024: https://www.icao.int/sites/default/files/secretariat/legal/Administrative%20Packages/mtl99_en.pdf
Answer this question in flashcards to review your response and continue practicing.