• 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.

• International Commerce and Information Review
• /
• v.11 no.1
• /
• pp.291-308
• /
• 2009

The implied obligation under the contract of affreightment not to carry dangerous goods without prior notice to the carrier applies to the contractual relationship between the charterer and the owner under charterparties. The charterers will be in breach of an implied undertaking under the common law if they load dangerous cargoes without making notice of dangerous nature of them to the owner. It is indicated to be necessary to change the term "shipper" to "charterer", with relation to such implied obligation, where the Hague/Hague-Visby Rules are incorporated into the charter, however, it is not so apparent where an actual shipper is involved. So long as an actual shipper could be identified, the shipper rather than the charterer shall be responsible for damages arising from the dangerous nature of the cargo itself. In this case, the actual shipper is interpreted to have an implied contractual relationship with the carrier just by the act of delivering the cargo to the carrier for loading. If the vessel were damaged by shipment of the dangerous cargo under charterparty, the carrier can claim against such damages based on the contractual obligations under charterparties: "implied and expressed duty not to ship dangerous cargo without notice to the carrier"; "Art.IV.6 of the Hague/Hague-Visby Rules"; "Indemnity Clause" and "Redelivery Clause". The carrier has the conventional right under the Hague/Hague-Visby Rules to land, destroy or render the goods innocuous where the dangerous cargo threatens the means of transport or other interests on board. When the carrier has not consented to make the shipment, the carrier's disposal right could be exercised without limitation. However, where the carrier has consented to make the shipment of the dangerous goods with the knowledge concerned, the right of disposal of such goods should be exercised with limitation.

• THE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE & LAW REVIEW
• /
• v.20
• /
• pp.369-385
• /
• 2003

Contracts of carriage evidenced by bill of lading which are made between carrier and unidentified number of the shipper are to a large extent regulated by statute law such as Hague-Visby Rules and Hamburg Rules. These rules qualifies the contractual liberty of parties and especially restrains the carrier from introducing exemption from his liability beyond those admitted by the Rules. However, these Rules are applied only to goods in respect of which a bill of lading or similar document of title has been issued. In this reason, it is possible that liability of carrier in respect of goods shipped could become an issue where electronic bill of lading is used instead of paper bill of lading because electronic bill of lading is not generally recognised document of title in existing rule. Thus, this article discuss the relation between the carrier who create electronic bill of lading and the Rules regulating liability of carrier. Also, new Rules which has been examining in UNCITRAL will be introduced.

• THE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE & LAW REVIEW
• /
• v.12
• /
• pp.377-401
• /
• 1999

This study is focused on the privity of the contract of carriage of goods by sea, so to speak, privity between B/L holder and carrier by transfer of bill of lading, privity by attornment to delivery order and conflict between bills of lading and charterparty terms. Under a CIF contract, possession of the bill of lading is equivalent to possession of the goods, and delivery of the bill of lading to the buyer or to a third party may be effective to pass the property in the goods to such person. The bill of lading is a document of title enabling the holder to obtain credit from banks before the arrival of the goods, for the transfer of the bill of lading can operate as a pledge of the goods themselves. In addition, it is by virtue of the bill of lading that the buyer or his assignee can obtain redress against the carrier for any breach of its terms and of the contract of carriage that it evidences. In other words the bill of lading creates a privity between its holder and the carrier as if the contract was made between them. The use of delivery orders in overseas sales is commen where bulk cargoes are split into more parcels than there are bills of lading, and this practice gives rise to considerable difficulties. For example, where the holder of a bill of lading transferred one of the delivery orders to the buyer who presented it to the carrier and paid the freight of the goods to which the order related, it was held that there was a contract between the buyer and the carrier under which the carrier could be made liable in repect of damage to the goods. The contract was on the same terms as that evidenced by, or contained in, the bill of lading, which was expressly incorporated by reference in the delivery order. If the transferee of the delivery order presents it and claims the goods, he may also be taken to have offered to enter into an implied contract incorporating some of the terms of the contract of carriage ; and he will, on the carrier's acceptance of that offer, not only acquire rights, but also incur liabilities under that contract. Where the terms of the charterparties conflict with those of the bills of lading, it is interpreted as below. First, goods may be shipped in a ship chartered by the shipper directly from the shipowner. In that case any bill of lading issued by the shipowner operates, as between shipowner and charterer, as a mere receipt. But if the bill of lading has been indorsed to a third party, between that third party and carrier, the bill of lading will normally be the contract of carriage. Secondly, goods may be shipped by a seller on a ship chartered by the buyer for taking delivery of the goods under the contract of sale. If the seller takes a bill of lading in his own name and to his own order, the terms of that bill of lading would govern the contractual relations between seller and carrier. Thirdly, a ship may be chartered by her owner to a charterer and then subchartered by the chaterer to a shipper, to whom a bill of lading may later be issued by the shipowner. In such a case, the bill of lading is regarded as evidencing a contract of carriage between the shipowner and cargo-owners.

• THE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE & LAW REVIEW
• /
• v.43
• /
• pp.297-336
• /
• 2009

In modern industrial society carriage of dangerous goods by sea becomes more increasing than ever before. Dangerous goods are required for special care and handling in that shipment of dangerous goods could affect safety of the vessel and other cargoes. It is also true that dangerous goods could be used as a means of terrorism. his article investigates allocation of risk and liabilities between parties involved in the carriage of dangerous goods by sea. More specifically, this study examines principles of strict liability of the shipper in shipment of dangerous goods with some limitations based upon recent cases. Furthermore this article investigates the issues on identity of shipper who bears strict liability to the carrier where there exist actual or documentary shipper other than the contractual shipper. Lastly, whether it is reasonable that the transfer of strict liability to the transferee, who does not have opportunity to verify dangerous nature of the goods before shipment, by endorsing bills of lading will be discussed critically.

• THE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE & LAW REVIEW
• /
• v.45
• /
• pp.3-31
• /
• 2010

The passing of property in goods affects contractual rights and duties. It is the point on which depend issues as diverse as the seller's entitlement to sue for the price and the incidence of risk of loss of casualty to the goods. The passing of property may also have an incidental effect on the remedies of the parties, including specific performance. But Incoterms do not deal with how the goods should reach the agreed point of delivery. While Incoterms specifically deal with questions of division of risk of loss of or damage to the goods between seller and buyer, they do not deal with property or transfer of title of the goods. Indeed, it was not even possible to agree on uniform rules on these questions in the CISG. Therefore, the parties to a contract of sale should provide for these matters themselves in the contract of sale and closely observe what the applicable law requires for the transfer of ownership to the goods and other property rights.

• THE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE & LAW REVIEW
• /
• v.43
• /
• pp.201-238
• /
• 2009

The purpose of this paper is to describe the contents and issues of the draft legislation of Part VI the Carriage by Air of Korean Commercial Code in respect of the domestic carriage of cargo by air, comparing to the related provisions of the Montreal Convention of 1999 for the unification of certain rules for international carriage by air and the related provisions of Korean Commercial Code in respect of the carriage by land and sea. The Montreal Convention in respect of the international carriage by air was adopted in 1999, and Korea has ratified the Montreal Convention in 2007. However, there is now no national legislation in respect of the carriage by air in Korea. Thus, the Ministry of Justice has prepared the draft legislation of Part VI the Carriage by Air of the Korean Commercial Code in July 2008, and the draft legislation is now being reviewed by the National Assembly. The draft provisions of Part VI the Carriage by Air are basically adopting most of the related provisions of the Montreal Convention in respect of the carriage of cargo by air and some draft provisions are applying the related provisions of the Korean Commercial Code in respect of the carriage of cargo by land and sea. In respect of the carriage of cargo by air, the contents of the draft legislation of Part VI the Carriage by Air are composed of the provisions in respect of the liability of the carrier, the rights of the consignor and consignee, the transport document and others. In respect of the carriage of cargo by air, the issues on the draft legislation of Part VI the Carriage by Air are the problems with respect to the extinguishment of the liability of the carrier, the application for the non-contractual claim, the liability limit of the servants or agents of the carrier, the right of disposition of cargo, the effect of breach of the provision in respect of the air transport document, the prescription of claim of the carrier, the immunity reasons from liability of the carrier for the loss or damage of the cargo, the making out of the air waybill, and the effect of the statement of the air transport document. In conclusion, the national legislation of Part VI the Carriage by Air of the Korean Commercial Code will protect the right and interest of the consignor and consignee, and clarify the right and duty of the parties to the air transport. Also it will contribute to the development of the air transport industry in Korea.

• The Korean Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy
• /
• v.24 no.2
• /
• pp.19-45
• /
• 2009

The purpose of this paper is to research the contents and issues of the draft legislation of Part VI the Carriage by Act of Korean Commercial Code in respect of the liability of the carrier in the carriage of cargo by air, comparing to the related provisions of the Montreal Convention of 1999. The Montreal Convention in respect of the international carriage by air was adopted in 1999, and Korea has ratified the Montreal Convention in 2007. However, there is now no national legislation in respect of the carriage by air in Korea. Thus, the Ministry of Justice has prepared the draft legislation of Part VI the Carriage by Air of the Korean Commercial Code in July 2008, and the draft legislation is now being reviewed by the National Assembly. The draft provisions of Part VI the Carriage by Air are basically adopting most of the related provisions of the Montreal Convention in respect of the carriage of cargo by air and some draft provisions are applying the related provisions of the Korean Commercial Code in respect of the carriage of cargo by land and sea. In respect of the liability of the carrier in the carriage of cargo by air, the contents of the draft legislation of Part VI the Carriage by air are composed of the provisions in respect of the cause of the liability of the and the application for the non-contractual claim, the limit of liability, the exoneration from liability, the extinguishment of liability, the notice of damage to cargo, the liability of the agents and servants of the carrier, and the liability of the actual carrier and successive carrier. The draft legislation of the Carriage by Air of Korean Commercial Code is different from the provisions of the Montreal Convention is respect of the liability of the carrier in the carriage of cargo by air as follows : the draft Article 913 paragraph 1 provides additionally the riot, civil war and quarantine as the exoneration causes from the liability for damage to the cargo of the carrier in the Article 18 paragraph 2 of the Montreal Convention. In respect of the liability of the carrier in carriage of cargo by air, the draft legislation of Part VI the Carriage by Air does not provide the settlement by arbitration of dispute relating to the liability of the carrier and the requirement of adequate insurance covering the liability of the carrier which are provided in the Montreal Convention. In author's opinion, it is desirable that the above mentioned provisions such as the arbitration and the insurance shall be inserted into the draft legislation of the Carriage by Air of Korean Commercial Code. In conclusion, the legislation of Part VI the Carriage by Air of the Korean Commercial Code shall be made by the National Assembly as soon as possible for the smooth and equitable compensation for damage to cargo arising during the carriage by air.

• Korea Trade Review
• /
• v.48 no.4
• /
• pp.149-168
• /
• 2023

Through an examination and analysis of straight bills of lading and sea waybills in the context of English, U.S.A and Korean law, and relevant international conventions on maritime transport, the following results were obtained: Prior to the enactment of U.K.'s the Carriage of Goods by Sea Act in 1992, straight bills of lading had functional differences between countries. However, after the enactment of this law, negotiable bills of lading obtained the same legal status and functionality in both Korea and the United States, as well as in the UK. As for sea waybills, all three countries treated them with the same contractual and legal status. In other words, they serve as receipts for the transported goods and act as evidence of the maritime transportation contract. Nevertheless, they are non-negotiable, and the delivery of goods can be made to the consignee or their agent based on their identity. However, the transfer of ownership rights over the goods or acquisition of legal rights against the carrier cannot be achieved through the transfer or endorsement of Sea Waybills.

• Journal of Korea Trade
• /
• v.25 no.2
• /
• pp.152-177
• /
• 2021

Purpose - This study analyses the excepted requirement and burden of proof of the carrier due to unseaworthiness through comparison between the marine transport contract and marine insurance contract. Design/methodology - This study uses the legal analytical normative approach. The juridical approach involves reviewing and examining theories, concepts, legal doctrines and legislation that are related to the problems. In this study a literature analysis using academic literature and internet data is conducted. Findings - The burden of proof in case of seaworthiness should be based on presumed fault, not proved fault. The burden of proving unseaworthiness/seaworthiness should shift to the carrier, and should be exercised before seeking the protections of the law or carriage contract. In other words, the insurer cannot escape coverage for unfitness of a vessel which arises while the vessel is at sea, which the assured could not have prevented in the exercise of due diligence. The insurer bears the burden of proving unseaworthiness. The warranty of seaworthiness is implied in hull, but not protection and indemnity policies. The 2015 Act repeals ss. 33(3) and 34 of MIA 1906. Otherwise the provisions of the MIA 1906 remain in force, including the definition of a promissory warranty and the recognition of implied warranties. There is less clarity about the position when the source of the loss occurs before the breach of warranty but the actual loss is suffered after the breach. Nonetheless, by s.10(2) of the 2015 Act the insurer appears not to be liable for any loss occurring after the breach of warranty and before there has been a remedy. Originality/value - When unseaworthiness is identified after the sailing of the vessel, mere acceptance of the ship does not mean the party waives any claims for damages or the right to terminate the contract, provided that failure to comply with the contractual obligations is of critical importance. The burden of proof with regards to loss of damage to a cargo caused by unseaworthiness is regulated by the applicable law. For instance, under the common law, if the cargo claimant alleges that the loss or damage has been caused by unseaworthiness, then he has the burden of proof to establish the followings: (i) that the vessel was unseaworthy at the beginning of the voyage; and that, (ii) that the loss or damage has been caused by such unseaworthiness. In other words, if the warranty of seaworthiness at the inception of the voyage is breached, the breach voids the policy if the ship owner had prior knowledge of the unseaworthy condition. By contrast, knowingly permitting the vessel to break ground in an unseaworthy condition denies liability only for loss or damage proximately caused by the unseaworthiness. Such a breach does not, therefore, void the entire policy, but only serves to exonerate the insurer for loss or damage proximately caused by the unseaworthy condition.