• Korea Trade Review
• /
• v.45 no.1
• /
• pp.119-135
• /
• 2020

It is well-known that if a claim for damage [Note: Damage can be singular or plural] is made based on a breach of contract, calculating the existence and magnitude of certain profits to be deducted based on the damage can be problematic. In the case of a time charter party, even if the early redelivering vessel by the time charterers constitutes a breach of contract, it is still not an exception. In particular, interest in the shipping business seems to be relatively high in terms of how claims for damage by ship owners have been adjusted. In the case of the New Flamenco, there is a debate over whether or not to deduct the difference between the sale price immediately after redelivering the ship and the sale price upon expiration of the contract from the damage based on the breach of contract for the early time charter redelivery vessel. This paper focuses on this case since it appears to be of practical importance and has implications on how to calculate the amount of damage in the case of cancellation for early redelivery vessel in a time charter party.

• Journal of the Korea Safety Management & Science
• /
• v.14 no.1
• /
• pp.109-116
• /
• 2012

It could be debated that the owners were indemnified from the charterers even in respect of the loss of deck cargo caused by the negligence on the part of the owners' servants by a clause 13(b) of NYPE(1993) form, where NYPE(1993) incorporated the Hague/Visby Rules by a paramount clause and did not contained an on deck statement to state or identify what or how much deck cargo was being carried, however the relevant bills of lading all had such statement. The socol 3 of U.K. is a very helpful decision on (1) an on deck statement in bill of lading was sufficient to exclude application of the Hague/Visby Rules to the carriage of deck cargo, as a result, the clause 13(b) should not be null and void by the clause 3(8) of the Hague/Visby Rules (3) the clause 13(b) could not protect the owners from the loss and/or liability caused by negligence and/or breach of the obligation of seaworthiness on the part of the owners, their servants and agents. Therefore, the purpose of this study is to critically analyze the decision in the socol 3, and provide the decision's practical implications in order to prevent legal disputes as to the on deck carriage between the owners and the charterters.

• Journal of the Korean Society of Marine Environment & Safety
• /
• v.25 no.6
• /
• pp.708-716
• /
• 2019

After the Sewol ferry disaster, the maritime safety supervisor system was introduced to strengthen maritime safety control for coastal vessels. If any critical defect is found in vessel facilities during periodical or occasional guidance and supervision on a vessel, a maritime safety supervisor takes an administrative measure: detention of the vessel until it has been completely corrected. The detention order is one of the most powerful regulations exercised by a maritime safety supervisor. It would not be an overstatement to say that the guidance and supervision conducted by a maritime safety supervisor is very important for the safety of a vessel and protection of the maritime environment. However, the regulatory level of each Regional Office of Oceans and Fisheries toward vessels may vary with the enforcers, and an individual's intentional act or negligence might occur during the execution process. Detention of a coastal vessel by the Regional Office of Ocean and Fisheries can easily lead to delayed navigation, and a vessel owner may suffer economic loss from suspension of a charter party. Nevertheless, the Maritime Safety Act does not prescribe filing a petition for objection to the measure of detention order by a maritime safety supervisor. To overcome this problem, therefore, the objection procedure under the Maritime Safety Act has to be reformed to reclaim a right against an inappropriate detention order measure caused by an individual's intentional act or negligence through a formal objection.