• 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.46
• /
• pp.181-210
• /
• 2010

The continuing advance of multimodal transport with the importance for efficient and effective logistics management emphasizes the need for uniform legal approach to international multimodal transport. However, the current fragmented instrument regulating such transport is being an obstacle to development of multimodal transport as it aggravates confusion and uncertainty. The Rotterdam rules, which was adopted in December 2008 by UNCITRAL, expands its scope of application to door-to-door transport. However, the new rules has some problems in its application to multimodal transport operation as it has been conceived not to regulate general multimodal carriage but to regulate contract of carriage by sea that extends its services to the transport by other modes. This article examines conflict of conventions in the Rotterdam Rules. The applicability of the Rotterdam Rules in international multimodal transport contract and possibility of potential conflict with other transport conventions are analyzed with some hypothetical cases. Furthermore, problems arising from application of the Rotterdam Rules under international multimodal transport Contracts are indicated in the chapter IV.

• Journal of Korea Trade
• /
• v.25 no.1
• /
• pp.203-219
• /
• 2021

Purpose - The purpose of this study is to review and analyzes the contract of carriage and delivery/transport document in light of the major changes made to the Incoterms^® 2020 rules forced into effect on January 1st, 2020. Design/methodology - This study analyzed responsibility for the loading and unloading of goods under the contract of carriage in Incoterms 2020^® rules forced into effect by the ICC from January 1, 2020, and what document must be presented as evidence of delivery by the seller. Findings - A review revealed that in Rule C, the costs of unloading at the place of destination are determined by the terms of the contract of carriage, and in the DAP and DDP rules, if the seller bears the unloading costs, such unloading costs cannot be recovered from the buyer. To settle this issue, the seller needs to make a contract of carriage by sea with the carrier on FI terms. Furthermore, in the case of containerized goods that the FCA should be used, FOB was misused because the seller could not present an on-board bill of lading in the L/C transaction. However, it was confirmed that in FCA, the parties can use an optional mechanism to issue an on-board bill of lading. Originality/value - Incoterms 2020^® rules are still widely used in international trade by parties to contract sales around the world, just like Incoterms 2010^® rules. This study attempts to reduce or eliminate disputes that may arise from interpretative misunderstandings between the parties in the contract of sales concluded by the seller and the buyer.

• THE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE & LAW REVIEW
• /
• v.51
• /
• pp.359-389
• /
• 2011

The Rotterdam Rules, which was adopted in December 2008 by UNCITRAL, has underlying intention that it will provide uniform law for the international carriage of goods by sea and modernize transport law reflecting modern transport custom. However, it is also true that there are various conflicting views on the Rotterdam Rules. This article tried to analyze main controversial issues such as scope of application, basis of liability of the shipper and the carrier, exception th the volume contract, legal position of the freight forwarder, delivery of the goods from the both sides of view. The Rotterdam Rules exposes some problems in applying and interpreting the Rules as many people indicated. These problems, I think, mainly due to the extended scope of application and broader range of issues. However, I do not think that the Rotterdam Rules will serious affect to the international transport industry. Furthermore, it is unreasonable to expect perfect Rules satisfying every interests.

• THE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE & LAW REVIEW
• /
• v.69
• /
• pp.303-326
• /
• 2016

The Rotterdam Rules regulate both transport documents and the legal effect of the choice of document much more comprehensively than the existing maritime convention to bring international harmonization of issues relating to transport documents. The Rotterdam Rules use the generic term 'transport documents' rather than referring to specific title such as bills of lading, sea waybills. The generic term 'transport documents' allow four types of transport documents to be identified as follows. 1. negotiable 2. negotiable which dispense with surrender 3. non-negotiable which require surrender 4. non-negotiable. Each types of transport documents has its requirements to be satisfied. Also, the choice of transport documents affects legal effect. Thus parties to the contract of carriage not only need to know how the document will be classified at the time it is issued but also consider what the documents will bring legal consequences.

• 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.6
• /
• pp.11-51
• /
• 1993

This study is focused on the problems and the suggestions of proper ideas for solving them which are arisen from appling CIF, Incoterms 1990 into the contract of sale after reviewing of the contents of traditional CIF contract and the main changes of CIF, Incoterms 1990. This study summerized as follows: First, when the seller provide the buyer with non-negotiable sea waybill or inland waterway document instead of negotiable bill of lading, it is my feeling that the essence of symbolic delivery in traditional CIF contract is fading. And if the buyer has paid for the goods in advance, or a bank wishes to use the goods as security for a loan extended to the buyer, it is not sufficient that the buyer or the bank be named as consignee in a non-negotiable document. This is true because the seller by new instractions to the carrier could replace the named consignee with someone else. To protect the buyer or the bank it is therefore necessary that the original instructions from the seller to the carrier to deliver the goods to the named consignee be irrevocable. Second, CIF term can only be used for sea and inland waterway transport. When the ship's rail serves no practical purposes such as in the case of roll-on/roll-off or container traffic, CIP term instead of CIF term is more appropriate to use. Third, the EDI method still contains many legal and technical problems to be solved in order to be used thoroughly' in the international sale of goods. Therefore, the parties wishing to replace the traditional paper-based trade documents by electronic messages must exchange the agreement on EDI each other in order to prevent and sol ye unexpected problems. Forth, it may be that the goods are to be carried in bulk without such marking or naming of consignee as would amount to appropriation. Then the risk will not pass until effective appropriation has been made. Therefore, the seller needs to appropriate by issuing of separate bills of lading or delivery orders for parts of the bulk cargo. And in case the goods are bought while they are carried at sea, some problems on the passing of risk would arise. One possibility is that the buyer might have to assume risks which have already occured at the time when the contract of sale is entered into force. The other possibility would be to let the pissing of the risk concide with the time when the contract of sale is concluded. The parties are advised to ascertain the applicable law and any solution which might follow there form. Finally, Incoterms are restricted to deal with the main principles for the division of functions, costs and risks between the parties and the rest is left to their individual contract as supplemented by the custom of the trade, the individual terms of the contract of sale and the applicable law. Thus, the parties are advised to ascertain the applicable law on their individual contract of sale in order to solve the problems on the transfer of property, the remedy and so on.

• THE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE & LAW REVIEW
• /
• v.37
• /
• pp.61-85
• /
• 2008

Bills of lading are crucial in international sales on shipment terms since they guard buyers against loss of or damage to the goods in transit by giving them the rights against carriers. A bill of lading, as document of title, gives the buyer the right to demand physical possession of the goods from the carrier and enables the buyer who is in possession of damaged or short-delivered goods to sue the carrier. In this context the buyer in sales on CIF or CFR terms or FOB terms with additional services benefits from the bill of lading which functions as a receipt of goods and a evidence of the terms of the contract of carriage. Protection of such buyer's interests can be provided in the sale contract through appropriate express or implied terms on the seller's documentary obligations: Which transport document, a bill of lading or a sea waybill, is required? Who should be named as the consignee in the transport document and, in case of bill of lading, by whom should the bill be endorsed? What should be stated in the bill of lading for the quantity of the goods? How about a bill of lading that contains so called "unknown clause"? How many bills of lading for the entire contract goods should be tendered? Can a bill of lading stating that the goods have been shipped in apparent good order and condition also state that the goods were damaged after shipment? This paper seeks to provide answers for these particular questions.

• 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.

• 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.