Based on the above case, Roppa Co do not have the rights in case of having difficulty during transit. This is because Roppa Co as a shipper company had followed the duties of shipper which is notice Jerry Ltd. about to ship dangerous goods (a chemical that contained radioactive substances). Under common law, there is a general responsibilities implied into bills of lading for a charter not to transport dangerous goods without any notice or declaration. Where goods are dispatched without notice of the dangerous goods or substance, the shipper will be obligate for any damage of the vessel, other cargo on board or other ship. The shipper has the duties to notice carrier of the dangerous nature of the goods regardless whether the shipper is aware of the dangerous nature.…show more content… It is clearly stated in Brass v Maitland [1856], where a consignment of ‘bleaching powder’ had been shipped in casks. During the journey, the chemical corroded the casks and damaged other cargo in the hold. In the case, the shipowner was expected to know that the cargo which described as “bleaching powder” is contained dangerous substances which is chloride of lime. The shipowner has the burden of proving lack of declaration and without disclosure regarding the dangers nature of the goods (Crump & Co). Majority of the court held that liability on the shipper is strict and could not be excused or justified on grounds of ignorance as it is the duties of shipper to give notice of dangerous goods. Hence, the carrier’s claim for damages was