• 무역학회지
• /
• 제44권6호
• /
• 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.

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제12권2호
• /
• pp.263-302
• /
• 2003

Since new Korean arbitration law was modeledafter UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration Law, the judicial review on the arbitral award is at most limited to fundamental procedural justice. Thus, drafting valid arbitration clause is paramount important to enforce arbitral awards in the new legal environment. A losing party in arbitral process would often claim of the invalidity of arbitration agreement to challenge the arbitral award. Especially, the validity of arbitration clause in the construction contracts is often challenged in Korean courts. This is because the construction contracts usually include selective arbitration agreement in multi-tiered dispute resolution clause that is drafted ambiguous or uncertain. In this paper selective arbitration agreement means a clause in a contract that provides that party may choose arbitration or litigation to resolve disputes arising out of the concerned contract. On the hand multi-tiered dispute resolution clause means a clause in a contract that provides for distinct stages such as negotiation, mediation or arbitration. However, Korean courts are not in the same position on the validity of selective arbitration agreementin multi-tiered dispute resolution clause. Some courts in first instance recognized its validity on the ground that parties still intend to arbitrate in the contract despite the poor drafted arbitration clause. Other courts reject its validity on the ground that parties did not intend to resort to arbitration only with giving up their right to sue at courts to resolve their disputes by choosing selective arbitration agreement. Several cases are recently on pending at the Supreme Courts, which decision is expected to yield the court's position in uniform way. Having reviewed recent Korean courts' decisions on validity and applicability of arbitration agreement, this article suggests that courts are generally in favor of arbitration system It is also found that some courts' decisions narrowly interpreted the concerned stipulations in arbitration law despite they are in favorable position to the arbitration itself. However, most courts in major countries broadly interpret arbitration clause in favor of validity of selective arbitration agreement even if the arbitration clause is poorly drafted but parties are presume to intend to arbitrate. In conclusion it is desirable that selective arbitration agreement should be interpreted favorable to the validity of arbitration agreement. It is time for Korean courts to resolve this issue in the spirit of UNCITRAL model arbitration law which the new Korean arbitration law is based on.

• 대한안전경영과학회지
• /
• 제14권1호
• /
• 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.