• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.14 no.2
• /
• pp.281-300
• /
• 2004

This paper is about a case on the arbitration of disputes between the parties of charter party. 'B' vessel owner on the original charter party first made a charter party with 'L' cargo owner on the original charter party. Then, 'B' entered into another charter party with 'D' vessel owner, who will actually take charge of carriage of the cargoes which is described on the original charter party. Therefore, 'B' is a carrier of cargoes of 'L' and 'D' is a carrier of cargoes of 'B', according to the contracts. The cargoes of 'B' is cargoes of 'L', by nature. In these circumstances, damages to the cargoes occurred in the transit by the vessel of 'D'. Who should take the responsibility for the damage of cargoes? Who must be liable for those, 'B' or 'D'？. According to the original charter party, 'L' signed 'as Charterers' and 'B' was the counterpart of 'L'. But 'B' signed as 'for and on behalf of 'B',' without 'as Owners'. Tribunal of arbitration award that 'B' should take the responsibility for the damage to the cargoes, because 'B' is the vessel owner. Although 'B' is a contract carrier, 'B' must bear the liability of transport of the cargoes. The counterpart of charterer, 'L' is 'B' who is presumed to be the vessel owner by the original charter party. 'D', actual carrier is not the privy of 'L', cargo owner. This case teach us that signature on the contract is the matter of great importance.

• THE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE & LAW REVIEW
• /
• v.62
• /
• pp.113-132
• /
• 2014

Judicial decisions make it clear that in all CIF, CFR and FOB contracts, incorporation of charter party into sale contracts is the only effective way for recovery of demurrage in the context of sale contracts. The case law would appear to clarify a number of important issues: The words of incorporation in the sale contract play a vital role in determining the extent of the influence of the charter party principles over the sale contract. Hence, unless it is expressly provided otherwise, the courts tend to apply the charter party principles to the incorporated charter party provisions to the extent that they make sense in the context of sale contract, and that they do not undermine the underlying foundations of international trade law. In this respect the courts also take into account the factual background of the case with a view to objectively ascertaining the intention of the parties. The law is, however, less clear on the effects of the incorporated charter party provisions in sale contracts. There is still no straightforward answer to the question of to what extent the charter party law is applied to the incorporated charter party provisions in the context of sale contracts. The case law on this matter merely provides piecemeal solutions, and it is not possible to extract a general rule which will help interpretation of those charter party provisions which have not yet been subject to litigation or arbitration. Therefore, it should be noted that the parties would prepare Incorporation Clause in their sale contracts in reliance of the rules to achieve the desired results.

• Journal of Korea Port Economic Association
• /
• v.21 no.4
• /
• pp.75-101
• /
• 2005

Every time charter must have a final terminal date, that is a date by which the charterer is contractually obliged to redeliver the vessel. Where the law implies a margin or tolerance beyond an expiry date stipulated in the charter party, the final terminal date comes at the end of such implied extension. When the parties have agreed in the charter party on the margin or tolerance to be allowed, the final terminal date comes at the end of such agreed period. But the nature of a time charter is that the charter is for a finite period of time and when the final terminal date arrives the charterer is contractually bound to redeliver the vessel to the owner References to delivery and redelivery are strictly inaccurate since the vessel never leaves the possession of the shipowner, but the expression are conventionally used to describe the time when the period of the charter begins and ends. The legitimacy or otherwise of what is to be regarded as a vessel's final voyage must be judged at the time when the charterers give an order for the vessel to carry out the voyage in question, and then by reference to what they order her to do. The purpose of this paper aims to analyse cases on the final voyage of time charter, and specially to explore implications of the final voyage in time charter through the Gregos case.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.30 no.4
• /
• pp.163-177
• /
• 2020

There are several ways to implement charter parties in the operation of the vessel. Under the time charter party, the charterer borrows the vessel from the shipowner and uses the vessel to benefit his business. The time charter party's legal relationship can be divided into internal and external relationships. This article deals with an internal relationship. The legal matters between the shipowner and charterer are regulated by the agreement. The NYPE is the most widely circulated type of time charter party. According to the NYPE, navigational matters fall upon the shipowner while business matter falls upon the time charterer. There are vague parts in interpreting NYPE articles. NYPE Art. 8, called the employment clause, is one of them. The Master employed by the shipowner should follow the order of the charterer. Whether the charterer has the right to order the Master of the vessel to follow the navigating route recommended by him was addressed in the Hill Harmony case by the UK Supreme Court. The court was affirmative. Under the Ocean Victory case, whether the time charterer has an obligation to order the Master to go out to escape heavy weather from the berth at the port was at issue. The Japanese lower court decided negatively. There is a tendency that many countries insert default rule in the maritime law to apply it to the case at issue in a case where there is no agreement. It serves the enhancement of legal stability; China, Japan, and Germany are such countries. The author thinks that Korea should follow the above three countries' revision of their maritime law.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.28 no.4
• /
• pp.153-172
• /
• 2018

In solving international commercial disputes, arbitration has a unique advantage. Therefore, when most parties sign a charter party, they contain arbitration clauses. Whether the arbitration clause in the charter party can be effectively incorporated into the bill of lading and bind to the third party-bill holder becomes an important issue. Based on the problem above, this paper compares the arbitration system between Korea and China, and discusses the composition of the Chinese Maritime Court and the Chinese court's adjudication of arbitration for foreign countries, which are recognized and enforced in China. What is most important in this study is observing the Chinese case from the beginning of 2000 to the present in order to rule whether the Chinese court can effectively incorporate the arbitration clause in the charter party into the bill of lading, as well as whether it constitutes an effective binding force for third parties and changes in standard of recognition. Finally, through comparative analysis, the study concludes that in China, the arbitration clause in the charter party can be effectively incorporated into the bill of lading, and that the conditions for the third parties can be effectively restrained. There must be several points to be noted when recording the bill of lading. This would then help reduce the legal risks and promote the sustainable development of international transactions.

• THE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE & LAW REVIEW
• /
• v.14
• /
• pp.7-35
• /
• 2000

The purpose of this paper is to examine the meanings of delivery of each trade term in INCOTERMS 2000, to investigate various kinds of transport document as a proof of delivery, and finally to find their problems. As a result of examination, following problems are considered to happen practically. First, a multimodal transport document referred in FOB term seems to be unappropriate because FOB term can be used in sea or inland waterway transport. Second, Assuming resale in transit in CFR or CIF term, non-negotiable Sea Waybill seems to be inappropriate. Third, As Sea Waybill is not a document of title, it can not be a security when the bank negotiate seller's draft. Fourth, INCOTERMS 2000 deleted the reference to charter party in CFR or CIF term. This deletion may raise any legal problems for the liabilities of carrier when the contradictions happen between the charter party B/L and charter party. Finally, if CFR or CIF means symbolic delivery, other documents besides B/L can not be a symbols of goods.

• Journal of the Korean Institute of Navigation
• /
• v.18 no.1
• /
• pp.63-84
• /
• 1994

Bareboat Charter Register or Dual Registration under a Demise Charter scheme, does not in fact sanc-tion the alternative use of flags of different states, but rather it authorises the use of the flag of the coun-try where the ship is temporarily flagged only. Bareboat Charter Register is not intended to miselead third party states or persons dealing with the ship in respect of its nationality. Bareboat Charter Register gives a shipwner a more flexible and attractive package, for example mortga-ging facilities might be more attractive in one state because of its stronger laws relating to recovery of liens, whereas the manning requirements might be attractive in another state. By using Bareboat Charter Register, a shipwner/manager can avail himself of both advantage instead of settling for a compro-mise. Ships on a Bareboat charter Register would be subject to the safety, manning and anti-pollution require-ments of the second flag state and would carry that state's right to fly a flag of the original state be withd-rawn and the effect is to suspend the registration during the period of demise charter except in so far as relates to Title transactions.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.12 no.2
• /
• pp.303-336
• /
• 2003

Incorporation of an arbitration clause by reference to other documents occurs in many international business transactions. The reference is either to another document that contains arbitration clause or to trading rules which contain the arbitration clause, without the main contract mentioning that arbitration has been agreed upon. In fact, incorporation by reference in to a contract of an arbitration clause set forth in another agreement is deemed valid in any number of circumstances, even when the parties to the two contractual instruments are not the same. Difficulties arise when, instead of an express arbitration provision, a contract contains a clause which refers to the trading rules of a certain trade association, so-called external arbitration clause. The U.S. courts which will presume that the parties intended to arbitrate under a particular set of rules when they expressly mentioned arbitration in their agreement, have sometimes refused to enforce contract clauses that do no more than refer to particular trading rules, even if these rules contain provisions binding the parties to arbitrate their disputes. The courts in such cases tend to be careful in determinig whether intent to arbitrate is present. In maritime contracts, the arbitration clause in a charter party is often referred to in the bill of lading. Such reference usually is held binding upon the parties to the contract of carriage, their knowledge of such practice being presumed. A nonsignatory may compell arbitration against a party to an arbitration agreement when that party has entered into a separate contractual relationship with the nonsignatory which incorporates the existing arbitration clause. If a party's arbitration clause is expressly incorporated into a bill of lading, nonsignatories … who are linked to that bill … may be bound to the arbitration agreement of others. An arbitration clause in a charterparty will be incorporated into a bill of lading if either - (a) there are specific words of incorporation in the bill, and the arbitration clause is so worded as to make sense in the context of the bill, and the clause dose not conflict with the express terms of the bill; or (b) there are general words of incorporation in the bill, and the arbitration clause or some other provision in the charter makes it clear that the clause is to govern disputes under the bill as well as under the charter. In all other cases, the arbitration clause is not incorporated into the bill.

• 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.

• THE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE & LAW REVIEW
• /
• v.70
• /
• pp.39-65
• /
• 2016

On 2013 the English court delivered a decision that the payment obligation under time charter party is a condition. According to this judgement, The Astra, a breach of the obligation to pay hire on time entitles the owner both to withdraw the ship and sue the charterers for damages for the difference between the contract and market rate for the remainder of the contracted period. On 2015, however, the English court stood at the other side. In Spar Shipping, the court confirmed that the obligation to pay hire is not a condition of the contract but an "innominate term" - from the charterers' breach ship owners can exercise their contractual right to withdraw, but owners' right to sue for damages depends on whether the charterers have deprived the owners of the substantial benefit of the contract, or shown an intention to do so. This article aims to compare both decisions over the points that (1) the importance of on-time payment under a time charter party, (2) as a critical and main question in this article, whether the mattered payment clause is a condition or innominate term, (3) whether the on-time payment clause is merely a penalty or a reasonable liquidated damage. Based on various reasons, I am on a position that the payment of hire is not a condition but an innominate term. Default in punctual payment by a charterer, in the absent of clear contractual agreement, needs to be decided further whether that breach removes the substantial benefit of the contract from the owners.