A problem is that shippers now recognise that it is quite safe to load cargo into containers in their “point of sale” packaging; so what will be the position if the line accepts a container described as carrying ten thousand boxes of widgets? The trade waits for more case law on this subject before the matter is fully clarified. Article IV Rule 5(a) allows for the minimum level of limitation to be raised above that provided by this Rule by the shipper expressly declaring a higher value before shipment and ensuring this is inserted in the B/L. (In the past days of Conference tariffs for conventional liner cargo this situation was covered by an ad valorem rate). Article IV Rule 6. This stresses the carrier’s right to deal robustly with undeclared dangerous cargo. Article IV bis. This is the rule which bring the “Himalaya” clause into play and provides servants or agents of the carrier the same protection and limitations as in the contract should a claim be made against them in tort. Article V. Confirms that the Rules do not prevent the insertion of any provision regarding General Average. Article VI. Permits the Rules to be incorporated into documents which are not actually B/Ls (e.g. waybills) Article VII. Permits the Rules to be extended to care or handling of the goods before and/or after carriage by sea; a rather important rule in the world of containers. Articles VIII and IX. Deal with the Rules not affecting rights and obligations under statutes in force and do not affect compliance with any international agreement concerning nuclear damage. Article X. Does not appear in the Carriage of Goods by Sea Act 1971 because that is the Rule which states that Hague-Visby applies to contracting states and to any contract when the parties choose to incorporate the Rules.