Undeniably the most conspicuous of the problem children of the CMR is art. 29 with its referral to the lex fori . In a convention that can almost be named famous for its diverging interpretations, this is quite an achievement indeed. The CMR family tree has more intractable branches however. Some of these, such as the jurisdiction and enforcement rules of art. 31 and 32, appear to have merely followed in the wake of art. 29 when it comes to being diffi cult, but others, like art. 1, have taken to generating disagreement with a will all their own. What they have in common is that they all infl uence the liability of the CMR carrier. They are all part of what should be a well-oiled machine; the occurrence and its circumstances should be fed in at the one end, and after some processing, the regime should spit out the exact extent of the liability of the carrier at the other. And, because the CMR is an international convention, it is preferable that it should do so in a uniform manner in all Member States. Because this is a description of legal utopia and not a portrayal of the current reality, the following will lay bare the discrepancies that exist in the interpretation of the above articles in Germany and the Netherlands, and the consequences thereof.