• International Commerce and Information Review
• /
• v.8 no.4
• /
• pp.147-156
• /
• 2006

In all cargo cases one of the first things the person handling the claim must do is decide who is potentially liable as a carrier of the goods. This issue arises because bills of lading often do not identify the carrier. The "carrier" could be the shipowner or the charterer or both. The issue of the identity of the "carrier" is a question of fact. The question to ask in each case is who undertook or agreed to carry and deliver the goods. The answer to this question will largely depend on the facts. The shipowner is almost always liable as a carrier under Common law provided there is no demise charter of the ship. The more recent case law, however, suggests that in the usual situation both the charterer and shipowner will be liable. Accordingly, both the owner and charterer should be put on notice of any claim and, in the event an extension of suit time is required, the extension should be obtained from both. An alternative method by which the charterer can avoid liability is to insert and 'Identity of Carrier' clause in the bill of lading.

• Journal of Korea Port Economic Association
• /
• v.21 no.1
• /
• pp.1-21
• /
• 2005

It has been more recent trends in container trade to make bogger ship from shipowners that many more parties concerned are getting involved. Well, it is natural to swift these situations if we have looked into container trade market in present time, which a lot of trade volumes has increased in world economy. Thus, supply side of shipping service needs to employ more capacity in the shipping market, then newbuilding may be compulsory options, that is deployment of larger ships. To cope with market situations as able shipowner, some alternatives can be also adopted, such as newbuilding, chartering and securing the space by strategic alliance. But whatever he does, shipowner has to keep in mind to prepare for the future. This is much more important factor considered to make investment decision in case of newbuilding and then he can make more efficient decision as well. However, there has been a little problems arisen due to larger ship employed on the trade route, which is linked with seaport, shipping companies and freight rates as well. Although shipowner decides to build new larger vessel as one of corporate strategic decision, there are many questions to be considered in advance. Therefore, in order to take more efficient decision, shipowner has to take into an account various situations surrounded, and then it can lead truly thoughtful decision making process.

• Korea Trade Review
• /
• v.45 no.4
• /
• pp.125-136
• /
• 2020

Freight charges are one of the major clauses in the voyage charter. However, in case of unexpected delays at loading and discharging ports, the owner of the ship would not be willing to cover the various costs he should bear by paying the freight receives from the charterer. Therefore, the shipowner, whose time and the ship would be both considered to be an expense, would try to reduce the laytime as least as possible when signing the charter party and to receive compensation such as demurrage and damage for detention from the charterer, just waiting for the agreed laytime to pass. In this study, we review the differences between demurrage and damage for detention and examine the acknowledgeable circumstances through the actual cases. Since the shipowner and the charterer do not often agree on the damage for detention from the respective contract, it is necessary to examine each. Besides, the shipowner and the charterer must acquaint the damage for detention and specify in a contract, to compensate for the actual loss of the shipowner.

• Journal of Korea Port Economic Association
• /
• v.31 no.2
• /
• pp.41-53
• /
• 2015

In Paracomon Inc. v. Telus Communication, Realice's anchor became entangled with a working fiber-optic submarine cable during its voyage and are presentative of the shipowner(the captain) cut the cable. The owner of the cable brought a claim for the repair cost against the shipowner. The shipowner then advanced a third party claim against a liability insurance underwriter. The Supreme Court of Canada (SCC) held that the shipowner was entitled to limit its liability under the 1976 Convention on the Limitation of Liability for Maritime Claims. The SCC also ruled that even though the misdeed of the shipowner was insufficient to break its right to limitation of liability, its wrongdoing constituted willful misconduct under the 1993 Canada Marine Insurance Act, allowing the underwriter to deny coverage for the incident. Thecasewasthefirsttoaddresstheinterrelationship between the shipowner's right to limit liability under the international convention regime and the availability of liability insurance with respect to such limited liability. This study analyzes the reasoning behind the SCC's judgment and evaluates the appropriateness of this court's decision based on the current maritime industry as well as prevailing maritime law. It concludes that the SCC's decision to declare that the shipowner retained the right to limit its liability is appropriate under the Limitation Convention (1976). However, its declaration that the liability insurer was discharged from liability is not correct in due consideration of the common recognition in the maritime industry, the intended purpose of a third party's right against the liability insurer, and the adoption process of the conduct barring limitation. Based on the SCC's decision, this study finally reviews the issue of the shipowner's right to limit and the coverage of the liability insurer in the Sewol case (2014).

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.30 no.4
• /
• pp.163-177
• /
• 2020

There are several ways to implement charter parties in the operation of the vessel. Under the time charter party, the charterer borrows the vessel from the shipowner and uses the vessel to benefit his business. The time charter party's legal relationship can be divided into internal and external relationships. This article deals with an internal relationship. The legal matters between the shipowner and charterer are regulated by the agreement. The NYPE is the most widely circulated type of time charter party. According to the NYPE, navigational matters fall upon the shipowner while business matter falls upon the time charterer. There are vague parts in interpreting NYPE articles. NYPE Art. 8, called the employment clause, is one of them. The Master employed by the shipowner should follow the order of the charterer. Whether the charterer has the right to order the Master of the vessel to follow the navigating route recommended by him was addressed in the Hill Harmony case by the UK Supreme Court. The court was affirmative. Under the Ocean Victory case, whether the time charterer has an obligation to order the Master to go out to escape heavy weather from the berth at the port was at issue. The Japanese lower court decided negatively. There is a tendency that many countries insert default rule in the maritime law to apply it to the case at issue in a case where there is no agreement. It serves the enhancement of legal stability; China, Japan, and Germany are such countries. The author thinks that Korea should follow the above three countries' revision of their maritime law.

• 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.8
• /
• pp.84-120
• /
• 1995

• THE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE & LAW REVIEW
• /
• v.11
• /
• pp.205-223
• /
• 1998

• Proceedings of the Korean Institute of Navigation and Port Research Conference
• /
• 2007.12a
• /
• pp.117-118
• /
• 2007

This paper was provided to apply the ITC-Hulls Clauses & ISM Code for the accident of sunken ship which was occurred by seamen's barratry. For the causes of the sunken accident, the underwriter insisted that shipowner submerged the vessel intentionally for the purpose of the insured amounts, while shipowner protests that the ship was submerged because of crews faults. In this connection, the judge sentenced that this accident was caused by humans errors as the Provisions of 6.2.4 of ITC-Hulls, however shipowner is responsible for hiring onboard qualified seafarers and carrying out the due diligence for performing ISM Code for ensuring ship's safety and seaworthiness.

• Journal of Navigation and Port Research
• /
• v.32 no.3
• /
• pp.229-235
• /
• 2008

This paper was provided to apply the ITC-Hulls Clauses & ISM Code for the accident of sunken ship which was occurred by seamen's barratry. For the causes of the sunken accident, the underwriter insisted toot shipowner submerged the vessel intentionally for the purpose of the insured amounts, while shipowner protests toot the ship was submerged because of crews faults. In this connection, the judge sentenced toot this accident was caused by humans errors as the Provisions of 6.2.4 of ITC-Hulls, however shipowner is responsible for hiring onboard qualified seafarers and carrying out the due diligence for performing ISM Code for ensuring ship's safety and seaworthiness.