Abstract The Hague-Visby Rules constitute a cornerstone of international maritime law, establishing a standardized regime framework governing the rights and liabilities of carriers in the carriage of goods by sea. However, despite their wide adoption and enduring influence, the Rules remain notably silent on the issue of liability for delays in delivery, especially where such delays result in pure economic loss without accompanying physical damage to cargo. This legislative silence has given rise to a significant interpretive gap, leaving courts and tribunals without clear guidance on whether such losses are encompassed within the liability and limitation provisions of the Rules. The absence of explicit provisions has not only generated divergent judicial and arbitral outcomes but also led to fragmentation in national applications, with some jurisdictions adopting restrictive interpretations while others opt for a broader reading based on commercial necessity. This article explores the implications of this gap and the resulting legal uncertainty it causes for stakeholders in international trade, including carriers, cargo interests, and insurers. It argues that the current framework fails to provide a coherent or predictable legal standard for handling delay-induced economic losses, thereby undermining the uniformity that international carriage regimes seek to achieve. Considering evolving commercial realities and the increasing relevance of time-sensitive logistics, the article advocates for a more inclusive interpretation of Article IV Rule 5(a), which limits liability for ‘goods lost or damaged’. It concludes that recognizing pure economic loss as falling within the scope of ‘damage’ to goods would better align legal interpretation with the practical demands of global trade and support greater consistency and fairness in international carriage dispute resolution.