• Korea Trade Review
• /
• v.44 no.6
• /
• pp.1-21
• /
• 2019

In the case of a sea transport contract, the decision of the governing law, together with the choice of lex fori, shall be a legal issue in all legal disputes involving damage to the goods. In sea transport contracts, a paramount clause is often established in conjunction with the governing law clause, which can lead to conflict between these two clauses. Most B/L's back clauses contain a paramount clause that provides that the Hague Rules, Hague-Visby Rules, or foreign laws that prevail over other provisions of the terms. The Hague Rules and the Hague-Visby Rules, however, set different standards regarding the extent of the sea carrier's liability. Therefore, in the interpretation of ground conditions, it is an important question whether the Hague Rules or the Hague-Visby Rules are applied or whether each rule is applied as a law. For example, the paramount clause in the Superior Pescadores case was problematic in the interpretation of the term 'Hague Rules.' In this case, the English Court held that the expression 'Hague Rules' could be used to mean the Hague-Visby Rules, and not exclusively the Hague Rules. Therefore, the Hague-Visby Rules were applied in the judgment of this case, which suggests that this case can be a valuable precedent in future legal matters.

• THE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE & LAW REVIEW
• /
• v.49
• /
• pp.325-358
• /
• 2011

The purpose of this study aims to analyse the implications of volume contract clause with Rotterdam Rules. The Hague-Visby Rules have been in force this jurisdiction for over 30 years. In those three decades they have performed valiant service, both for the development of maritime law in this country and for the countless parties from around the world who have chosen courts and arbitral tribunals in London for the resolution of disputes arising under bills of lading or under charterparties incorporating the Hague-Visby Rules. While the Hague-Visby Rules apply only to bills of lading or any other similar documents of title and hence all other contracts of carriage are not subject to the current regime, this is not the case for the Rotterdam Rules which, broadly speaking, apply to contracts of carriage whether or not a shipping document or electronic transport record is issued. To preserve freedom of contract where necessary, however, a number of significant concessions were made and Article 80 represents one of the most controversial: that of volume contracts. However, the provision lends itself to abuse under each one of the elements as there is no minimum quantity, period of time or frequency and the minimum number of shipments is clearly just two. This means that important contracts of affreighment concluded pursuant to, for example, oil supply agreements have the same right to be excluded from the scope of application of the Rotterdam Rules. The fact that a volume contract may incorporate by reference the carrier's public schedule of services and the transport document or other similar documents as terms of the contract would make a carefully drafted booking note for consecutive shipments a potential volume contract as well.

• 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.

• 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.53
• /
• pp.101-133
• /
• 2012

The paper aims to analyse the obligations and Responsibilities of shipper in the Rotterdam Rules. The Rotterdam Rules, has underlying intention that it will provide uniform law for the international carriage of goods by sea. It is highly expected that the Rotterdam Rules will create the new international legal regime replacing Hague-Visby Rules and Hamburg Rules. Rotterdam Rules provide the obligations and responsibilities of shipper in express. The shippers obliged to provide, (a) duty as to the condition in which the cargo has to be delivered to the carrier, (b) cooperation of the shipper and the carrier in providing information and instruction, and (c) shipper's obligation to provide information, instructions and documents. The shipper is liable for loss or damage sustained by the carrier if the carrier proves that such loss or damages was caused by a breach of the shipper's obligations. However, the shipper is relieved of all or part of its liability if the cause or one of the causes of the loss or damage is not attributable to its fault or to the fault. But, the shipper shall indemnify the carrier against loss or damage resulting from the inaccuracy of such information. Rotterdam Rules is providing rather concrete as to the shipper's responsibilities and burden of proof in separate chapter. The question is whether such burden of proof of the fault should be imposed to the shipper.

• THE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE & LAW REVIEW
• /
• v.42
• /
• pp.189-210
• /
• 2009

The United Nations General Assembly adopted the United Nations Convention on Contracts for the International Carriage of Goods Wholly or Partly by Sea(hereinafter referred to as "The Rotterdam Rules") on 11 December 2008. Rotterdam Rules aims to create a contemporary and uniform law providing for modern door-to-door container transport including an international sea leg. but not limited to port-to port carriage of goods. The structure of the liability regime in Rotterdam Rules are globally close to that of the Hague-Visby Rule even though it differs from that of the Hague-Visby Rules in some significant aspects. The Rotterdam Rules are very long. Therefore the Rotterdam Rules will be difficult to understand for even the skilled ship operator or owner or charterer or shipper or consignee or receiver because they are so complicated. This paper only seeks to highlight the salient features of the liability and limitation of liability regime under the Rotterdam Rules. It is expected that the harmonization and modernization of the international legal regime. coupled with the bold attempt to balance the carrier and cargo interests should lead to an overall reduction in transaction costs. increased predictability and greater commercial confidence for international business transactions.

• THE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE & LAW REVIEW
• /
• v.31
• /
• pp.59-78
• /
• 2006

The purpose of this research is to discuss the excepted perils of carriers, to expose moot points arising from the applications of the excepted perils of the carriers, and then to suggests improvements them. The methodology of this research depended largely upon a combination of the related precedents, international treaties related to the excepted perils of carriers. The excepted perils of carriers in marine carriage begin with extremely limited perils based on the receptum liabilities and the absolute liability principle in English common law. Proceed via the intemperate expansion of the excepted perils by the widespread diffusion of the principle of free contract. but via the American Harter Act, The Hague Rules, The Hague Visby Rules, and The Hamburg Rules Came contracted. This study conducted an analysis of the excepted perils for the carriers and suggests improvements in them but it remains regrettable that we are not in a position to sustain them since we are lacking is precedents connected with The Hamburg rules.

• Journal of Korea Port Economic Association
• /
• v.22 no.4
• /
• pp.1-17
• /
• 2006

In the Bill of Lading of The Irbenskiy Proliv is not subject to the Hague-Visby Rules in accordance with paragraphs (A) and/or (E) of cl.1 or to the Hague Rules in accordance with paragraphs (B) and/or (D) of cl.1. The Irbenskiy Proliv is very rare case that is effective to exempt the carrier as literal words of Bill of Lading. The action concerns cargoes of perishable goods shipped from Brazil to Japan, under Bills of Lading each of which contained an extensive carrier's exemption clause. A preliminary issue was ordered to be determined on the question whether c1.4 is effective to exempt the ralliers from any potential liability for the claims in this case. The court held that there is no reason to reject c1.4 as part of each of the contracts contained in or evidenced by the bills of lading; and it protects the carrier where damage to the goods shipped results from such causes. It is therefore effective to exempt the carriers from any potential liability for those claims.

• THE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE & LAW REVIEW
• /
• v.51
• /
• pp.317-358
• /
• 2011

The purpose of this study aims to analyse the key differences of the sea waybill and electronic B/L in the international transport documents. Sea waybills look remarkably like ordinary bills of lading. Indeed, in two important ways, they are just like bills of lading: the front of the document will near a description of the quantity and apparent condition of the goods; and the back of the document provides evidence of the terms of the contract of carriage. They differ from bills of lading in that, far from indicating that the goods described are deliverable to the order of the shipper or of the consignee, they will make it explicit that the goods are deliverable only to the consignee. Again, different carries will do thai in a variety of ways. For example, the document may call itself non-negotiable, omitting the word order from the consignee box on the front of the document, and stating explicitly that the goods will be deliverable to the consignee or his authorised representative on proper proof of identity and authorisation. The Hague-Visby Rules and Hamburg Rules give no guidance as to any right to instruct the carrier in respect of goods while they are in transit. However, in applying Article 50 of the Rotterdam Rules, in particular when applying it in the context of seawaybills, straight bills of lading or ship's delivery orders, regard would need to be had to preserve the shipper's rights under any of those three documents even after the buyer of goods covered by them has acquired rights of its own. And, the right of control is defined at Article 1.12 of the Rotterdam Rules. The right to give instruction is further limited by the terms of Article 50.1 to three particular types of instruction in respect of the goods, relating broadly to the goods, their delivery en route, and the identity of the consignee. And, the CMI formulated the CMI Uniform Rules for Sea Waybills for voluntary incorporation into any contract of carriage covered by such a document. Recognising that neither the Hague nor the Hague-Visby Rules are applicable to sea waybills, the CMI Rules provide that a contract of carriage covered by a waybill shall be governed by whichever international or national law, if any, would have been compulsorily applicable if the contract had in fact been covered by a bill of lading or similar document of title.

• 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.