• Journal of Korea Port Economic Association
• /
• v.25 no.1
• /
• pp.169-190
• /
• 2009

In order to establish whether any charterparty terms are incorporated into the bill of lading, the first necessity is to specify the charterparty alluded to the incorporation clause in the bill of lading. However, this becomes a potential problem where the date of a charterparty is not inserted on the face of the bill of lading in case a vessel is in operation under a number of charterparties. Over many years this issue has frequently been raised before the English courts, but it is still causing problems. The purpose of this study is to examines the several English authorities which dealt with the issue relating to the specification of charterparty incorporated into the bill of lading and to present some interpretation rules and the order of priority. As a result, the comparative analysis of English authorities shows that they failed to give dear guidance on this issue. This article therefore suggests four interpretation rules such as the precedence of a B/L's face, the rule of appositeness, surrounding circumstances, the contra proferentem rule and shows that the precedence of a B/L's face is most applicable for all parties.

• Journal of Navigation and Port Research
• /
• v.38 no.5
• /
• pp.471-477
• /
• 2014

In general, a regular charterparty form is used as a charterparty for tugboats which are employed in marine construction and a bareboat charter form is generally used for barge boat charterparty. As the tug-barge charterparty which are currently used do not have a standardised form, contracting parties arbitrarily decide on the terms and conditions of the contract. As a result, provisions of the charterparty usually do not specify in the contract which party bears the burden of liability in case of accident. Furthermore, the terminologies used in the charterparty are different from legal terms of current commercial law which causes confusion. These problems can be solved mostly by clarifying the legal character of the charterparty between the contracting parties and by conforming the terminologies. In addition, endeavour to standardise the contract form must be carried forward at the same time. This research purports to study actual condition of current charterparty for tug-barge ship which are employed to marine construction and to suggest systematic improvement plan. For this purpose, this research focuses on studying cases in which dispute arose due to lack of clarity in the provisions of the contract with regard to which party bears the burden of liability in case of accident. This research also purports to suggest forming the standardised contract terms of the charterparty as one way of solution and examine matters to be attended in writing a standardised form.

• Journal of Korea Port Economic Association
• /
• v.28 no.3
• /
• pp.167-192
• /
• 2012

The purpose of the study aims to analyse the judgement criterion of arrived ship under voyage charterparty with the Merida Case. A ship is an arrived ship if she is in port and either able to proceed immediately to a berth or in such a position that she is at the immediate and effective disposition of the chaterparty. Identification of the specified destination-whether berth or port-impacts on the incidence of loss occasioned by delay in loading or discharging, when the delay is due to the place at which the vessel is obliged by the terms of the charterparty to load or discharge her cargo being occupied by other shipping. The Merida case is an appeal by the charterers from a final Arbitration award of two very experienced arbitrators, dated 20th April, 2009. The arbitrators held that a voyage charterparty, dated 5th February, 2007, of the vessel, The M/V Merida, entered into between charterers and the owners, was a port rather than a berth Charterparty. The Primary relevance of this distinction does to the allocation, as between owners and charterers, of the risk of delay caused by congestion at load and discharge ports. The question of law arising in this appeal is whether the arbitrators were right to conclude that the charterparty was a port and not a berth charterparty. The arbitrators additionary placed some reliance on a post-contractual e-mail from the agents, which suggested that charterers did not dispute the validity of the NOR-and, hence, that this was a port charterparty.

• Journal of Korea Port Economic Association
• /
• v.24 no.2
• /
• pp.19-41
• /
• 2008

The purpose of this study aims to explore scope of damages resulted from early redelivery under time charter with the Golden Victory case. In this case, disputes arose in relation to the quantum of damages recoverable by th owners. The owners contended that the second Gulf War was irrelevant to their claim, which was to be assessed at the difference between the charter rate and the lower market rate for the whole of the remaining four-year period of the charterparty. The charterers contended that since clause 33 would have entitled them to cancel the charter on the outbreak of the second Gulf War, two years after the repudiation, the owners' claim for damages only ran for those two years. There was no such rule as was contended for by the owners, and that the damages had to reflect the fact that, had there been no repudiatory breach, the charterparty would not have run its full term because the charterers would have cancelled the charter on the outbreak of the second Gulf War.

• Journal of Korea Port Economic Association
• /
• v.29 no.1
• /
• pp.47-66
• /
• 2013

This article reviews some problems arises from signing by the master bills of lading issued on time chartered ship. The underlying purpose of time charters is generally for the charterers to have the services of the vessel in order to engage in the business of carriage of goods by sea, a business which is likely to involve the issue of bills of lading to shippers. Charterer under the charter have a right to issue B/L, thereby the master must sign bill of lading as presented, but may not vary the contract. Bills of lading signed by, or on behalf of the master, impose contractual liabilities upon the shipowner. Charterer have no right to ask the master to sign a bill of lading in any way deviating from the charterparty. If the shipowner suffers loss as a result of the master obeying any order about employment or agency, he will be entitled to an indemnity from the charterer. The master may refuse to sign bills of lading which contain some discrepancy such as a false statement and manifestly inconsistent with the requirements of the charterparty.

• Journal of Navigation and Port Research
• /
• v.38 no.1
• /
• pp.81-87
• /
• 2014

Today, it is a trend that the demand of offshore plants is constantly growing, along with the advances in technology which are thoroughly needed to the rise of international oil price as well as offshore energy development. In addition, The main sectors of ship building, sale & purchase and chartering market regarding various kind of offshore supporting vessels that supports the business of offshore energy development is now maintaining its steady growth. However, in domestic case, the contract of time charter occasions regarding the offshore support vessel are almost non-existing situation. Thus, the relevant practical study regarding to implementation of various kinds of legal disputes and applicable laws that can be properly applied in time charter and the field of sale & purchase needs to be conducted actively. Therefore, the concept of this study has included the wide comparisons of other special provisions with the existing time-charter by making its base on "Supply Time 2005" which is the worldwide standard form of time charter in offshore support vessel market and its investigation, aiming to provide practical guidance and procedure for implementation of arbitration and applicable law issues which can be applied in legal disputes between parties.

• Proceedings of the Korean Institute of Navigation and Port Research Conference
• /
• 2012.06a
• /
• pp.269-272
• /
• 2012

통상적인 항해용선계약에 따르면 체선료의 책임은 반대의 문언이 없는 한 용선자에게 있는 것으로 추정된다. 그러나 실무에서는 용선자의 책임이 제한되거나 송하인 또는 수하인 등에게 이전되어 선주가 체선료확보에 어려운 상황에 직면하게 되는 경우가 빈번하게 발생되고 있다. 본 연구에서는 용선자, 송하인, 수하인, 선하증권의 배서인, 기타 이해당사자간의 체선료지불 책임에 관한 문제를 영미법의 사례를 중심으로 살펴보고 결론과 시사점을 도출하여 선주나 운항업자의 실무에 도움이 되는 방안을 제시한다.

• Journal of Navigation and Port Research
• /
• v.39 no.1
• /
• pp.37-43
• /
• 2015

At marine construction sites, there are problems with regard to dispute on the responsibility of safety management of chartered barge and its legal issues. In general, demise charter with crew is used for barge charterparty which is committed to the marine construction. Although Chapter 5 of the Korean Commercial Act enact provisions regulating a Time Chargerparty and a Bareboat Charterparty, it is difficult to clarify where the responsibility lies with regard to the safety control of the chartered barge. For this reason, disputes on accountability arise when accident occurs in effect. As a result, parties of the charterparty shift the responsibility on each other and there is increased risk for occurrence of similar accidents. There is no legally required qualification for a head of barge workers who is in charge of barge management. It is not possible to demand the head of barge workers to take charge of tasks which requires professional judgment as a marine technician considering his daily work scope. Furthermore, the barge committed to the marine construction as a form of bareboat charter or equipment charterage is an object which should be managed by safety supervisor of the charterer's marine construction. The charterer bears a duty to manage the safety of the barge. Therefore, the charterer is generally liable for the damage incurred in the course of using the chartered barge.

• International Commerce and Information Review
• /
• v.15 no.2
• /
• pp.285-313
• /
• 2013

By the revision of the Commercial Code of Korea in 1991 and 2007, some provisions for the regulation of Time Charterparty have been introduced into our own maritime law system. But, those provisions are in their nature mainly the reproduction of the provisions prescribed in the standard forms of time charterparty which are widely used, such as BALTIME Charter and NYPE Form, and the subject matters of their regulation are restrictive, so that the applicability of the provisions is not desirable. The cargo is lost or damaged, the cargo owner should seek compensation form, or sue, the carrier as, traditionally, under the COGSA, the cargo carrier is responsible for loss of damage of cargo. However, it is difficult to determine who is the responsible carrier under charters. There is no test to determine the carrier, but the courts in every country generally consider the bill of lading. Although the master has general authority to sign bills of lading on behalf of the shipowner, he can also sign bills of lading for, and on behalf of, the charterer. In this case, the charter is considered the carrier. Furthermore, the charterer is authorized to contract with third parties on behalf of the shipowner and, as such, the responsible carrier is the shipowner. Therefore, when determining the carrier we should examine carefully the all factors and the circumstances surrounding the case. Also, negligence of a captain of a time-chartered ship causing damages to a third party. It will analyze the legal character of a time-charter contract, review judicial precedents on time-charter. The Inter-Club Agreement was drawn up and is intended to be a somewhat easier way of allocating liability for cargo claims between owners and charterers and, although there is still scope for disputes to arise, the Inter-Club Agreement does in fact to some extent make the allocation of liabilities for cargo claims easier. Finally, it will also make legislative suggestions to resolve complex issues involving maritime transportation contracts under the current Commercial Code.

• Journal of Korea Port Economic Association
• /
• v.23 no.3
• /
• pp.29-51
• /
• 2007

The purpose of this study aims to explore shipowner's lost profit and its claim resulted from delay in redelivery under time charter with the Achilleas case. In this case, the charterers submitted that there was an established prima facie measure of damages in cases of late delivery, namely the difference between the market rate and the charter-party rate for the period from the time when the vessel should have been delivered until the time of her actual redelivery. An award for lost profit in respect of a subsequent charter could only be made under the second limb because the charterers had not been told, at or before the making of the addendum, that the owners were going to enter into a subsequent fixture and that it was critical that redelivery take place on time. However, the owners said their losses that was a not unlikely consequence of the charterers' breach. There was no special rule that the first limb could only lead to damages calculated by taking the difference between the market and the charter-party rate for the overrun. To award damages in the Achilleas case on the basis of the difference between the market and the charter rate for the overrun would compensate the owners for only a fraction of the true loss caused by the breach.