Not infrequently a time-chartered vessel will break ground without the master having signed bills of lading or having authorized charterers or their agents to do so on his behalf. In such cases it is often customary for the charterer to sign the bills “for master”, with the intention of binding the shipowner to the bills of lading as a carrier under the Hague or Hague-Visby Rules.1

However, considerable doubt has arisen during the last decade in American courts as to the effect of such a signature by the charterer. Recent American cases have swung away from their prior citation of British precedent, which holds the charterer’s act to be an authorized signature on behalf of the shipowner. Thus, the American cases have created a disuniformity in maritime liabilities according to the lex fori. Therefore, an examination of the evolution of this bifurcation may prove valuable.

As is very often the case in the area of maritime law, American courts, when lacking a domestic rule of law, may look across the Atlantic for a precedent in the well developed body of British maritime law. Such is the origin of the American rule applicable to cases where a charterer or its agent has signed bills of lading “for the master”, even though the master has not himself bestowed express authority to so sign upon the charterer of the vessel.

Although late 19th and early 20th century American Admiralty law is replete with cases holding the vessel liable in rem under such circumstances for cargo damage,2 the American courts did not early address the question of the shipowner’s liability in personam where the charterer has signed “for the master” without the benefit of explicitly stated authority to do so.

This question arose in 1907 in Britain in the seminal case of Tillmanns & Co. v. S.S. Knutsford, Ltd.3 Because Tillmanns is the genesis of Anglo-American Admiralty law on this point, that case merits a somewhat detailed discussion.