• The Journal of shipping and logistics
• /
• v.34 no.4
• /
• pp.583-613
• /
• 2018

This study analyse the safe port warranty undertaking for shipowner of time charterer with the Ocean Victory Case. Litigation ensued between those in the charterparty chain. When the hull insurer, Gard, took an assignment of the rights of the vessel's owners and demise charterers in a claim against the time charterers that the vessel had been ordered by them to an unsafe port in breach of the charter. Although the claim succeeded, the Court of Appeal overturned the decision. The Supreme Court delivered its judgment on May 10, 2017, dealing with three important issues, safe port, joint insurance, and limitation of liability. Especially on the safe port issue, the court held that the port was not unsafe within the meaning of the safe port undertaking so the charterers were not in breach of it. The conditions in the port amounted to an abnormal occurrence as that expression is understood.

• 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.

• THE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE & LAW REVIEW
• /
• v.11
• /
• pp.205-223
• /
• 1998

• Journal of Navigation and Port Research
• /
• v.37 no.6
• /
• pp.689-697
• /
• 2013

The demurrage is regarded as a kind of the ocean freight and a remuneration of the time lost for the vessel while in port. In ordinary occasions of the voyage charter, the liability of a demurrage is usually laid on the charterers unless any exceptions are incorporated. The owners are, however, often meeting somehow difficulty to secure demurrage in the field as the liability is limited or transferred to a third party from the charterers. This paper is focused on clearing the liabilities to be held by the parties involved through the English Law cases, and what's more is rendering a proper suggestions to the owners and charterers on dealing with the ship's operation business.

• THE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE & LAW REVIEW
• /
• v.69
• /
• pp.327-348
• /
• 2016

Under the Korean legal system, as an actual carrier is not the contractual party to the contract for carriage of goods by sea, it has been tortiously liable for the damage to, or loss of cargo, should there be the negligence by its part. However, the Rotterdam Rules introduces a revolutionary liability regime for the actual carrier. According to the Rotterdam Rules, the liability of the actual carrier is same with that of a contractual carrier with the result that a shipper is entitled to bring the direct action to the actual carrier, as well as the contractual carrier on the same basis. Nevertheless, it is expected to take long time for the new approach in respect of actual carrier's liability to be confirmed by many countries, and furthermore most of shipping countries including Korea still adopt the Hague-Vis by Rules where the shipper is not allowed to bring the direct action to the actual carrier. This study reviews on whether or not the alteration of actual carrier's liability based on Rotterdam Rules would be reasonable, considering the current Korean legal system. Furthermore, this study, whilst recognizing that the overall introduction of the new liability regime is somewhat premature, suggests the imposition of contractual liability to the actual carrier from a long-term perspective. Having in mind that the article 809 of the Korean Commercial Act allows the shipper to bring the direct action to the shipowner only in the case that a time charterer is the contractual carrier, this study explores a method to apply the contractual liability to the actual carrier in the case that a slot charterer or freight forwarder is the contractual carrier, in order to establish the uniform liability system.

• 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.

• 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.

• 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.28 no.1
• /
• pp.83-104
• /
• 2012

The main purpose of tramp ships in shipping markets is to produce operation profits by minimizing the running days in a contract of the voyage charterparty. It is an especially difficult task for the owners to earn operation profits in the present recessional shipping market. Tramp ships are moving towards globalization in order to look for a variety of cargoes, which are distinguished from the liners operating regularly as per the fixed time schedule. Tramp shipping, therefore, requires special attention every voyage to secure operation efficiency which comes from minimized sea and laytime in port. The laytime is allowed by owners but if the charterers use more laytime than that which is incorporated in the charterparty, then a compensation known as 'demurrage' must be paid to owners. Conversely if the time is shorter this is called 'despatch' and in this case the owners are paid. As the laytime issue in the voyage charter is somewhat delicate, it often causes much disputes between charterers and owners during the cargo handling in ports. This study focuses on the charterers' right and duty on the laytime which is usually applied for the benefit of the charterers. Reference is also made to English law cases to reinforce this study and the conclusion will make relevant suggestions for further research.