• THE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE & LAW REVIEW
• /
• v.49
• /
• pp.325-358
• /
• 2011

The purpose of this study aims to analyse the implications of volume contract clause with Rotterdam Rules. The Hague-Visby Rules have been in force this jurisdiction for over 30 years. In those three decades they have performed valiant service, both for the development of maritime law in this country and for the countless parties from around the world who have chosen courts and arbitral tribunals in London for the resolution of disputes arising under bills of lading or under charterparties incorporating the Hague-Visby Rules. While the Hague-Visby Rules apply only to bills of lading or any other similar documents of title and hence all other contracts of carriage are not subject to the current regime, this is not the case for the Rotterdam Rules which, broadly speaking, apply to contracts of carriage whether or not a shipping document or electronic transport record is issued. To preserve freedom of contract where necessary, however, a number of significant concessions were made and Article 80 represents one of the most controversial: that of volume contracts. However, the provision lends itself to abuse under each one of the elements as there is no minimum quantity, period of time or frequency and the minimum number of shipments is clearly just two. This means that important contracts of affreighment concluded pursuant to, for example, oil supply agreements have the same right to be excluded from the scope of application of the Rotterdam Rules. The fact that a volume contract may incorporate by reference the carrier's public schedule of services and the transport document or other similar documents as terms of the contract would make a carefully drafted booking note for consecutive shipments a potential volume contract as well.

• THE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE & LAW REVIEW
• /
• v.54
• /
• pp.235-260
• /
• 2012

The CMI Rules for Electronic Bills of Lading were based on sound principles that are now reflected in the provisions of the Rotterdam Rules, which provide for the use of electronic equivalents to bills of lading. Services involving bills of lading which exist in electronic form for at least part of their lives, and which use encryption to guarantee integrity and security of these electronic records, are already being offered by a number of carriers, among them APL. The relative success of APL's system demonstrates that the use of a system which embodies the basic ideas and processes underlying the CMI Rules could easily become a practical reality in the near future. The basic principles in the CMI Rules and the Rotterdam Rules adopt a minimum requirements approach and does not flesh out the details of procedures for the use of electronic bills. This is an improvement, as it allows adaptability to future technological developments. Successful electronic bill of lading systems can only be developed in response to customer demand, and carriers are in the best position to gauge this and design systems to cater for it. APL has demonstrated this by creating a system which is tailor-made to its customers' requirements. The CMI Rules were correct in their assumption that electronic bill of lading services should be provided by carriers. They also seem to have anticipated that the switch to the electronic medium would not be sudden and complete, but would require a gradual phasing out of paper documents over a long period of time.

• THE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE & LAW REVIEW
• /
• v.42
• /
• pp.189-210
• /
• 2009

The United Nations General Assembly adopted the United Nations Convention on Contracts for the International Carriage of Goods Wholly or Partly by Sea(hereinafter referred to as "The Rotterdam Rules") on 11 December 2008. Rotterdam Rules aims to create a contemporary and uniform law providing for modern door-to-door container transport including an international sea leg. but not limited to port-to port carriage of goods. The structure of the liability regime in Rotterdam Rules are globally close to that of the Hague-Visby Rule even though it differs from that of the Hague-Visby Rules in some significant aspects. The Rotterdam Rules are very long. Therefore the Rotterdam Rules will be difficult to understand for even the skilled ship operator or owner or charterer or shipper or consignee or receiver because they are so complicated. This paper only seeks to highlight the salient features of the liability and limitation of liability regime under the Rotterdam Rules. It is expected that the harmonization and modernization of the international legal regime. coupled with the bold attempt to balance the carrier and cargo interests should lead to an overall reduction in transaction costs. increased predictability and greater commercial confidence for international business transactions.