• Proceedings of the Korean Society of Marine Engineers Conference
• /
• 2005.11a
• /
• pp.90-91
• /
• 2005

• Proceedings of the Korean Society of Marine Engineers Conference
• /
• 2005.11a
• /
• pp.88-89
• /
• 2005

• THE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE & LAW REVIEW
• /
• v.64
• /
• pp.155-185
• /
• 2014

Liability for the manufacture or supply of defective products can arise in two principle ways, in tort and in contract. English law has long regarded shipbuilding contract as agreement for the sale and purchase of goods. The consequence of which is that unless the Buyer and Builder agree otherwise, terms will automatically be implied into the contract between them as to the quality and performance of the completed vessel. The same principle applies to sub-contracts allied to the shipbuilding contract. On the other hand, one case decisions established that ".... a contract to build a ship, though a contract of sale of goods, has also some characteristics of a building contract", Recently the liability of a manufacturer in tort for physical damage i.e. personal injury and damage to property other than alleged to be defective is now well settled in most countries. Accordingly the Builder may face third party claims in tort more regularly than they have in the past, if the statutory implied terms have not been expressly excluded in contract. In such circumstances, it is necessary for the Builder to be prepared with counter measures to secure the stability of the vessel from its design development, building process, delivery and operation etc. The purpose of this paper is, from the case of "MSC Carla", to review product liability, jurisdiction and the initial date of extinctive prescription, then to suggest counter measures to the Builder.

• Proceedings of the Korean Society of Marine Engineers Conference
• /
• 2006.06a
• /
• pp.129-132
• /
• 2006

• MARITIME LAW REVIEW
• /
• v.29 no.2
• /
• pp.115-144
• /
• 2017

The impact of the global financial crisis, which began in the United States in 2007, had a major impact on the domestic shipping and shipbuilding industries. In this regard, the domestic shipyard has established an order-taking strategy in several ways as an alternative to lowering the amount of construction of commercial vessels due to deterioration of the shipping industry, and selected industrial sector was the offshore plant sector. However, the domestic shipyard has under performed the offshore plant in order to just increase sales and secure work without any risk analysis for EPC contracts. As a result, the shipyard has been charged more than the initial contract price with the offshore plant contractor, or the shipyard has become a legal issue requiring payment of liquidated damages due to delays in delivery of the product. The main legal disputes are caused by the thorough risk analysis and the inexperience of process control that can occur during offshore plant construction. and In particular, there is no sufficient review of the unequivocal provisions in the contract as an element of risk management. There is no human resource to review these contractual clauses. Therefore, this study identifies the existence of specific risks that could lead to delays in offshore plant construction, and examined the existence of any unequivocal clauses in contracts for offshore plant construction. and also discussed how the toxic clause applies to the actual parties and how the concrete risk factors in the construction contracts are transferred and expressed by referring to the interviews with the project manager of the domestic shipyard and the previous research. As a result, This paper examined the legal liability of the contracting parties regarding delayed delivery of the products due to the offshore plant construction contract. And to improve the domestic shipbuilding industry.