² These regulations repealed and replaced the regulations which were in force in 1914 and 1916. The definition of owners’ risk, however, is the same in all regulations.

³ The corresponding owners’ risk clauses had kept the English courts extremely busy. However the net result in both jurisdictions has not been very much different, see Peek v. Staffordshire Ry Co. (1863), 10 H.L. Cas. 473 and the cases cited there. See also Prof. O. Kahn Freund The Law of Carriage by Inland Transport, Part Two, pp. 193–290.

⁴ Unreported decision—BNP-HC-Rev-65–1948.

^{page 147 note 1} Unreported decision—HC-Rev-145–1951.

^{page 147 note 2} Unreported decision—HC-NP-Rev-85–1950.

^{page 147 note 3} See Ibrahim Abdel Maksoud v. Sudan Railways, S.L.R. Vol. I, p. 226—HC-CS- 265–1920.

^{page 147 note 4} See Mohd Ahmed el Bereir v. Sudan Railways, S.L.R. Vol. I, p. 228—A-CApp-18–1920.

^{page 147 note 5} See Wasey-Sterry, L.S., in Ibrahim Abdel Maksoud v. Sudan Railways, supra.

^{page 147 note 6} Chotalal Vithaldas v. Sudan Railways, AC-App-29–1948 (Unreported) and Abdo Rabu Ali el Hemeidi v. Sudan Railways, HC-Rev-145–1951.

^{page 147 note 7} 7 Exc. Rep. at p. 707.

^{page 148 note 1} Parker v. S.E. Railway Co. (1877), 2 C.P.D. 416 at p. 418 and Sudan Government Railways v. Abdo Rabu Ali el Hemeidi—HC-Rev-145–1951.

^{page 148 note 2} Bonsor v. Musicians Union, [1954] Ch. 419.

^{page 148 note 3} [1966] 2 All E.R. 61. For a critical analysis of the decision see Treitel (1966), 29 Mod. L. Rev. 546.

^{page 148 note 4} Mohd Ahmed el Bereir v. Sudan Railways, supra.

^{page 148 note 5} Saad el Tayeb Kambal v. Sudan Railways, supra.

^{page 148 note 6} Ibrahim Abdel Maksoud v. Sudan Railways, supra.

^{page 148 note 7} Abdo Rabu Ali el Hemeidi v. Sudan Railways, supra, especially judgment of the Dongola District Court.

^{page 148 note 8} In none of the nine available cases on the subject was the court prepared to hold that there was wilful misconduct.

^{page 148 note 9} Supra.

^{page 149 note 1} Ibid., p. 227.

^{page 149 note 2} MaxwellFleming and Osborne, JJ.

^{page 149 note 3} Ibid., p. 227.

^{page 150 note 1} Supra; See p. 2 of the Judgment Record.

^{page 150 note 2} Supra; See p. 3 of the Judgment Record where the learned judge says:— “The proof of such wilful misconduct is, of course, on the person seeking to render the administration liable.…

I do not consider that the fact admitted, together with the fact that theft by an outside agency on the line was not offered as a possible explanation in the case, were nearly sufficient to exclude the possibility of loss in some manner otherwise than by dishonesty or other wilful misconduct of an employee. There is obviously a variety of possible explanations; and although dishonesty by an employee is certainly one of them, it is not the only one nor necessarily the most probable one on the facts ascertained.”

^{page 151 note 1} Supra; at p. 3 of the Judgment Record.

^{page 151 note 2} Supra; at p. 2 of the Judgment Record.

^{page 152 note 1} See Lord Buckmaster in Smith v. G. W.R., [1922] A.C. 176, at p. 183, where he said: “It is often impossible for a trader to know what it is that has caused the loss of his goods between the time he has delivered them into the hands of the railway company's servants and the time when they ought to have been delivered at the other end of the journey and for the trader to be compelled to prove that it was due to wilful misconduct of the railway company's servants is to call upon him to establish something which it may be almost impossible for him to prove.”

^{page 152 note 2} E.g. Ibrahim Abdel Maksoud v. Sudan Railways, supra.

^{page 152 note 3} O. Kahn-Freund, op. cit., pp. 257, 258; see also Barry, J., in Horabin v. B.O.A.C. [1952] 2 All E.R. 1016 at p. 1019, and Hallett, J., in Harstoke Fruiterers v. L.M.S., [1942] 2 All E.R. 488 at p. 490.

^{page 152 note 4} Bastable v. North British Ry., 1912, S.C. 555.

^{page 152 note 5} Harstoke Fruiterers v. L.M.S., supra.

^{page 152 note 6} Supra.

^{page 153 note 1} The type of situation that arose in Cheshire v. Bailey, [1905] 1 K.B. 237.

^{page 153 note 2} Cheshire v. Bailey, supra; but also see Morris v. Martin, [1965] 2 All E.R. 725, which establishes the contrary.

^{page 153 note 3} S. 7.

^{page 153 note 4} (1862–63) 10 H.L. Cas. 473.

^{page 153 note 5} Ibid., pp. 511–512.

^{page 154 note 1} Kahn-Freund, op. cit., p. 226.

^{page 154 note 2} Brown v. Manchester, Sheffield and Lincolnshire Ry. (1883), 8. App. Cas. 703.

^{page 154 note 3} See Lewis v. G.W. Ry. (1877), 3 Q.B.D. 195; Williams v. Midland Ry., [1908] 1 K.B. 252, and G.W. Ry. v. McCarthy (1887), 12 App. Cas. 218. The law on this point was changed in 1928 when the Transport Tribunal approved a number of standard terms and conditions to determine the carriers’ liability when the goods are carried at owners’ risk and at carriers’ risk. The law was again changed by the Transport Act, 1962, to give the carriers greater freedom of operation.

^{page 154 note 4} Kahn-Freund, op. cit., p. 228.

^{page 154 note 5} Supra.

^{page 154 note 6} MaxwellFleming and Osborne, JJ.

^{page 154 note 7} S.L.R., Vol. I at p. 227.

^{page 155 note 1} Peek v. North Staffordshire Ry., supra.

^{page 155 note 2} Unreported decision—AC-APP-37–1926.

^{page 155 note 3} See Bell, C.J., at p. 3 of the judgment record and Hamilton-Grierson, J., at p. 17.

^{page 155 note 4} Unreported decision—HC-Rev-145–1951.

^{page 156 note 1} At pp. 3 and 4 of the Judgment Record.

^{page 156 note 2} See Mohd Ahmed el Bereir v. Sudan Railways, and Limnios Brothers and Mikhail Haggar v. Sudan Railways, supra.

^{page 157 note 1} See s. 7.

^{page 157 note 2} See Blackburn, J., in Peek v. North Staffordshire Ry., at pp. 511–512.

^{page 157 note 3} See quotation from judgment of Wasey-Sterry, L.S., in Mohd Ahmed el Bereir v. Sudan Railways, supra.

^{page 157 note 4} See s. 2–302.

^{page 157 note 5} M. S. Madkour, Islamic Jurisprudence, Part IV, ss. 585–590.

^{page 157 note 6} Egyptian Civil Code, articles 151/212/13 82. See also Dr. A. F. El Sadda, Contracts of Adhesion, pp. 182–183 and 360–365. The rule has been restated with greater emphasis in article 6 of the Revised Civil Code.

^{page 157 note 7} French Civil Code, art. 1134.

^{page 158 note 1} Cheshire & Fifoot, Law of Contract, 6th ed., p. 116. But see Pearson, L.J. in U.G.S. Finance Ltd. v. National Mortgage Bank of Greece, [1964] Lloyds’ Rep. 446.

^{page 158 note 2} See by way of example Glynn v. Margetson & Co., [1893] A.C. 351, at p. 357; Smeaton Hanscombe Co. v. Sassoon (No. 1), [1953] 2 All E.R. 1471; Karsales v. Wallis, [1956] 2 All E.R. 866; Sze Hai Tong Bank Ltd. v. Rambler Cycle Co., [1959] All E.R. 182; Astley Industrial Trust Ltd. v. Grunley, [1961] 2 All E.R. 281; Charterhouse Credit v. Tolly, [1963] 2 All E.R. 432; and U.G.S. Finance Ltd. v. National Mortgage Bank of Greece, [1964] Lloyds’ Rep. 446.

^{page 158 note 3} [1966] 2 All E.R. 61.

^{page 158 note 4} See Devlin, J., in Alexander v. Railway Executive, [1951] 2 K.B. 882; also see Lord Denning in Sze Hai Tong Bank Ltd. v. Rambler Cycle Co. Ltd., [1959] A.C. 576, where he made it clear that, if the contract is broken in circumstances which evince a repudiation of the contract and a deliberate disregard of bounden obligations, the contract would be at an end and the carrier cannot, to avoid liability, rely on any exemption clause.

^{page 158 note 5} Unreported decision—AC-CS-58 & 59–1926, AC-App-37–1926.

^{page 159 note 1} P. 8 of the Judgment Record.

^{page 159 note 2} Only one English case was cited by the learned judge, on the meaning of “wilful misconduct.”

^{page 159 note 3} See Devlin, J., in Smeaton Hanscombe & Co. v. Sassoon Setley & Co. (No. 1), [1953] 1 W.L.R. 1468, at p. 1470.

^{page 159 note 4} Cheshire & Fifoot, op. cit., pp. 116–117, Kahn-Freund, op. cit. p. 236.

^{page 160 note 1} At p. 7 of Bell, C.J.'s, judgment.

^{page 160 note 2} At p. 4 of Bell, C.J.'s, judgment.

^{page 160 note 3} 12 Q.B.D.

^{page 160 note 4} [1887] 12 A.C. 503.

^{page 160 note 5} [1915] 2 K.B. 370.

^{page 160 note 6} [1922] 2 A.C. 263.

^{page 161 note 1} At pp. 2–4 of judgment of Owen, J.

^{page 161 note 2} P. 3 of Owen, J.'s, judgment.

^{page 162 note 1} P. 5 of Owen, J.'s, judgment.

^{page 162 note 2} Supra.

^{page 162 note 3} [1905] K.B. 697.

^{page 162 note 4} Pp. 3–4 of Hamilton-Grierson, J.'s, judgment.

^{page 164 note 1} Unreported. AC-Rev-416–1964.

^{page 164 note 2} At p. 3 of the Judgment Record.

^{page 164 note 3} Supra.

^{page 164 note 4} Supra.

^{page 164 note 5} Mohd Ahmed el Bereir v. Sudan Railways, supra.

^{page 165 note 1} [1962] 1 Q.B. 617.

^{page 165 note 2} Kahn-Freund, op. cit., p. 241.

^{page 165 note 3} See Treitel, 29 M.L.R. 546, and John Tiley, 110 Solicitors Journal, 730.

^{page 166 note 1} See Sudan Mercantile Co. (Motors) Ltd. v. Abdel Karim Beshir Mustafa, AC-Rev-416–1964.

^{page 167 note 1} See by way of example; Abdo Rabu Ali El Hemeidi v. Sudan Railways and Mohd Ahmed El Bereir v. Sudan Railways, supra.

^{page 167 note 2} See the judgment of BabikerAwadalla, C.J., in Sudan Mercantile Co. (Motors) Ltd. v. Abdel Karim Beshir Mustafa, supra, at p. 3 of the Judgment Record. See also Sasso Bracale v. Mohd Abdel Magid & others—HC-CS-145–1929.

^{page 167 note 3} J.C.-App-4–1907.

^{page 167 note 4} At p. 2 of the Judgment Record.

^{page 167 note 5} Supra.

^{page 168 note 1} (1962), S.L.J.R. 216.

^{page 168 note 2} (1877), 2 App. Cas. 455, at p. 476.

^{page 168 note 3} (1957), S.L.J.R. 17.

^{page 169 note 1} (1957), S.L.J.R., at p. 19.

^{page 169 note 2} Unreported, AC-App-62–1918.

^{page 169 note 3} At p. 3 of the Judgment Record.

^{page 169 note 4} Unreported, HC-CS-614–1948.

^{page 170 note 1} At pp. 3 & 4 of the Judgment Record.

^{page 170 note 2} At p. 4 of the Judgment Record.

^{page 170 note 3} At p. 6 of the Judgment Record, he also said that in any case the English rules in this respect are at best no more than persuasive.

^{page 170 note 4} See pp. 5 and 6 of the Judgment Record, where the learned judge suggests that “loss” in ss. 2 and 20 mean something different from what it means in ss. 19 and 165.

^{page 170 note 6} AC-App-29–1948.

^{page 170 note 7} See Abdel Gadir El Baloula v. El Saggay Agricultural Scheme, supra; Sudan Mercantile Co. (Motors) Ltd. v. Abdel Karim Beshir Mustafa, supra; and Mansour Hussein Wahigh v. Anglo American Nile Co., supra.

^{page 170 note 7} Supra.

^{page 170 note 8} Particularly see pp. 4 and 5 of the judgment of Owen, J.

^{page 171 note 1} Unreported HC-CS-243–1948.

^{page 171 note 2} At p. 3 of the Judgment Record.

^{page 171 note 3} (1960), 32 N.J. 358.