Definition
A condition clause appearing in bills of lading under which the shipper's or consignee's obligation to pay freight is governed by the terms of the charterparty (the underlying contract between shipowner and charterer), rather than by the face terms of the bill of lading alone. When a bill of lading incorporates this phrase, it signals that the freight rate, timing of payment, and manner of calculation are determined by reference to the charter agreement, not by any rate stated on the bill itself. The phrase operates as an incorporation clause, binding parties to the charterparty's freight provisions even if they are not expressly reproduced in the bill of lading.
---
Common Confusion
This phrase is frequently encountered alongside similar-sounding clauses in bills of lading, such as "paying freight for the said goods" (Rapalje & Lawrence citing 13 East 565) — a distinct formulation addressed separately in the historical authorities. The two are not interchangeable. "Paying freight for the said goods" describes the obligation to pay freight on the specific goods enumerated in the bill; "paying freight according to charter" shifts the entire freight calculation framework to the charterparty. A researcher who conflates them may misread the applicable rate, the party obligated, or the conditions precedent to freight becoming due.
---
Why It Matters in Research
This phrase is a creature of commercial shipping practice, and its legal significance lies almost entirely in the interpretive question of what the charterparty actually provides. Researchers consulting nineteenth-century sources should be alert to several navigational issues.
First, the phrase functions as an incorporation-by-reference clause. Courts construing bills of lading containing it were required to examine the charterparty as extrinsic evidence, which put pressure on parol evidence rules and raised threshold questions about whether the charterparty was adequately identified in the bill. The degree to which courts permitted or restricted that inquiry varied across English and American decisions.
Second, the phrase had particular importance for third-party holders of bills of lading — consignees and indorsees who were not parties to the original charterparty. Whether such a holder was bound by the charterparty's freight terms (which might differ from, or be more onerous than, what the bill of lading's face suggested) was a recurring dispute in nineteenth-century admiralty and commercial courts. The phrase placed a constructive-notice burden on the holder.
Third, in the Law Mind corpus, related bill of lading clauses appear clustered in Rapalje & Lawrence under the "PAYING" headnote group, suggesting that nineteenth-century practitioners and compilers treated these phrases as a family of interpretive problems arising from the same commercial instrument. Researchers tracking freight obligation disputes should cross-reference entries for "PARTY (in a bill of lading)" and "PAYING FREIGHT FOR THE SAID GOODS" in that same source cluster.
Fourth, the charterparty incorporated by this phrase may itself contain conditions — demurrage provisions, dead freight terms, lien clauses — that effectively modify the freight obligation. A surface reading of the bill of lading alone is structurally insufficient.
---
Historical Dictionary Support
Rapalje & Lawrence include this phrase as a discrete entry in their catalog of bill of lading terms, grouped with other "PAYING" clauses as judicially construed formulations. The entry is citation-based rather than definitional, pointing researchers to the case law without elaborating the doctrine — a characteristic format for terms whose meaning was understood to be controlled entirely by judicial interpretation of specific instruments.
The Rapalje & Lawrence approach reflects the broader nineteenth-century lexicographic method for commercial law terms: identify the phrase as it appears in a standard form instrument, anchor it to a leading case, and leave construction to that authority. What the historical dictionaries do not provide is any synthesis of the divergence between English admiralty practice (where charterparty incorporation into bills of lading was well-developed) and American federal admiralty courts (where the rules on third-party binding were contested through much of the nineteenth century). Researchers relying solely on Rapalje & Lawrence will find the English authorities well represented but American jurisdictional nuance underweighted.
---
Jurisdictional Note
English admiralty courts developed relatively settled rules on charterparty incorporation into bills of lading by the mid-nineteenth century. American federal admiralty practice followed English precedent in broad outline but with ongoing disagreement about the rights of bona fide holders for value. Researchers working with American shipping disputes from this period should not assume that English cases cited in historical dictionaries are directly controlling.
---