• 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.

• Journal of the Korean Society of Marine Environment & Safety
• /
• v.24 no.3
• /
• pp.319-324
• /
• 2018

The collision problem is one of the design factors that must be carefully considered for the risk of collision occurring during the operation of ships and offshore structures. This paper presents the main results of the ship collision study, and its main goal is to analyze potential crash scenarios that may occur in the FLNG (Floating Liquefied Natural Gas) considering the likelihood and outcome. Consideration being given to vessels visiting the FLNG and surrounding vessels navigating around, such as functionally supported vessels and offloading carriers. The scope includes vessels visiting the FLNG facility such as in-field support vessels and off-loading carriers, as well as third party passing vessels. In this study, based on QRA (quantitative risk assessment), basic research methods and information on collision are provided. Based on the assumptions and methodologies documented in this study, it has been possible to clarify the frequency of collision and the damage category according to the type of visiting ship. Based on these results, the risk assessment results related to the collision have been derived.

• Journal of the Korean Society of Safety
• /
• v.14 no.4
• /
• pp.120-125
• /
• 1999

This study evaluated the effect of the accidents caused by fire, explosion, and toxic gas release by using SuperChems, quantitative hazardous material release modeling software, which estimates the potential area of damage. According to the loss severity, the appropriate risk management principles can be applied. Risk management is divided into the two methods which are risk control and risk financing. Risk control includes risk avoidance, risk spreading and diversification, and risk reduction. Risk financing includes risk retention and risk transfer. The results of this study can help the related company determine the appropriate reserve fund and the amount to be insured against the third party losses according to the estimated loss severity.

• 한국가스학회:학술대회논문집
• /
• 2000.09a
• /
• pp.27-33
• /
• 2000

• 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.

• The Korean Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy
• /
• v.22 no.2
• /
• pp.3-25
• /
• 2007

In 2002 Republic of Korea successfully launched a self-made mined proportion rocket and it is expected that she will be able to have own space launching system by 2010. According to Article 14 of the Space Exploration Promotion Act, a new law should be established to impose the limit of compensation for the damage by space accident. Therefore, The Space Accident Liability Act was passed in Korean Congress on Nov. 22, 2007 and it will be enforced in six months. The purpose of this Act is to provide reparation for the damage of the third parties that a launch causes; and the Commonwealth should be insured against any possible space accidents to pay for such a damage. Here space accident means the damages to our life, body, and properties from the launching of space objects. There should be an actual loss to establish the compensation of Liability Act. Article 2 in Liability Act defines "damage" as follows: the term "damage" means loss of life, personal injury or loss of or damage to property of persons. Physical and material damages are included in the conception of damage. The meaning of a launching includes any test launch and launch for a real arrangement which will ultimately provides a wide range of compensation. Article 4 indicates that absolute liability should be imposed in compensating for damage by space accidents. Article 4 also indicates that a launching party should be absolutely liable to compensate for the damage caused by its space object on the surface of the Earth. In general, liability stands where fault is. But if the activity is ultra-hazardous and causes serious harm, the individual needs to compensate for the damage unlimitedly. Because of the many launchings for the Seattleite launching, a launching organization is obligated to the liability insurance in preparation for the space accidents. According to the Article 6 of Space Accident Liability Act, to be insured for the compensation for damage is obligatory. It says: "In accordance with Article 11 in the Space Exploration Promotion Act, the person who wants to receive an approval f3r launching needs to be insured in compensation for the possible damage by space accidents.

• THE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE & LAW REVIEW
• /
• v.58
• /
• pp.59-98
• /
• 2013

Risk of loss is a term used in the law of contracts to determine which party should bear the burden of risk for damage occurring to goods after the sale has been completed, but before delivery has occurred. Under the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC), there are four risk of loss rules, in order of application. First, it is agreement that is the agreement of the parties controls. Second, the breaching party is liable for any uninsured loss even though breach is unrelated to the problem. Hence, if the breach is the time of delivery, and the goods show up broken, then the breaching rule applies risk of loss on the seller. Third, the delivery by common carrier other than by seller is necessary: Risk of loss shifts from seller to buyer at the time that seller completes its delivery obligations; If it is a destination contract, then risk of loss is on the seller; If it is a delivery contract, then the risk of loss is on the buyer. Fourth, if the seller is a merchant, then the risk of loss shifts to the buyer upon buyer's receipt of the goods. If the buyer never takes possession, then the seller still has the risk of loss. This paper discusses problems of risk of loss under the American law. Specifically, this paper focuses on the interpretation of UCC sections and analysis of various cases. By comparing, also, UCC and Korean law, the paper proposes some implications of risk of loss issues for Korean law.

• Journal of the Korean Society for Aviation and Aeronautics
• /
• v.12 no.3
• /
• pp.41-63
• /
• 2004

The area covered by product liability in broadest sense is so vast that an attempt to analyse all its impact on the aviation world risk. Every effort has been made to confine our review of subject a closely as possible to its influence on aircraft manufacturers, airlines and passengers, in spite of strong connections with other spheres of commercial. Product Liability in aviation is the liability of aircraft's manufacturer, processor or non-manufacturing seller for injury to the person or property of a buyer or third party caused by a product which has been sold. Here-in a product is aircraft, third party is passengers who suffered damage by defective design, defective construction, inadequate instructions for handling in aircraft. Whenever a product turns out to be defective after it has been sold, there are under Anglo-American law three remedies available against the aircraft's manufacturer (1) liability for negligence (2) breach of warranty (3) strict liability in tort. There are Under continental law Three remedies available against the aircraft's manufacturer (1) liability for defective warranty (2) liability for non-fulfillment of obligation (3) liability in tort. It is worth pointing out here an action for breach of warranty or for defective warranty, for non-fulfillment of obligation is available only to direct purchaser on the basis of his contract with the aircraft's manufacturer, which of course weakness its range and effectiveness. An action for tort offers the advantage of being available also to third parties who have acquired the defective product at a later stage. In tort, obligations are constituted not only by contract, but also by stature and common law. In conclusion, There in no difference in principle of law. In conclusion I would like to make few suggestions regarding the product liability for aircraft's manufacturer. Firstly, current general product liability code does not specify whether government offices(e.g. FAA) inspector conducted the inspection and auditory certificate can qualify as conclusive legal evidence. These need to be clarified. Secondly, because Korea is gaining potential of becoming aircraft's manufacturer through co-manufacturing and subcontracting-manufacturing with the US and independent production, there needs legislation that can harmonize the protection of both aircraft's manufacturers and their injured parties. Since Korea is in primary stage of aviation industry, considerate policy cannot be overlooked for its protection and promotion. Thirdly, because aircraft manufacturers are risking restitution like air-carriers whose scope of restitution have widened to strict and unlimited liability, there needs importation of mandatory liability insurance and national warranty into the product liability for aircraft's manufacturers. Fourthly, there needs domestic legislation of air transportation law that clearly regulates overall legal relationship in air transportation such as carrier & aircraft manufacturer's liability, and aviation insurance.

• The Korean Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy
• /
• v.33 no.1
• /
• pp.227-260
• /
• 2018

Recently, as the use of drones increases, the risk of drone accidents and third-party property damage is also increasing. In Korea, due to the recent increase in drone use, accidents have been frequently reported in the media. The number of reports from citizens, and military and police calls regarding illegal or inappropriate drone use has also been increasing. Drone operators may be responsible for paying damages to third parties due to drone accidents, and are liable for paying settlements due to illegal video recording. Therefore, it is necessary to study the idea of providing drone insurance, which can mitigate the liability and risk caused by drone accidents. In the US, comprehensive housing insurance covers damages caused by recreational drones around the property. In the UK, when a drone accident occurs, the drone owner or operator bears strict liability. Also, in the UK, drone insurance joining obligation depends on the weight of the drones and their intended use. In Germany, in the event of personal or material damage, drone owner bears strict liability as long as their drone is registered as an aircraft. Germany also requires by law that all drone owners carry liability insurance. In Korea, insurance is required only for "ultra-light aircraft use businesses, airplane rental companies and leisure sports businesses," where the aircraft is "paid for according to the demand of others." Therefore, it can be difficult to file claims for third party damages caused by unmanned aerial vehicles in personal use. Foreign insurance companies are selling drone insurance that covers a variety of damages that can occur during drone accidents. Some insurance companies in Korea also have developed and sell drone insurance. However, the premiums are very high. In addition, drone insurance that addresses specific problems related to drone accidents is also lacking. In order for drone insurance to be viable, it is first necessary to reduce the insurance premiums or rates. In order to trim the excess cost of drone insurance premiums, drone flight data should be accessible to the insurance company, possibly provided by the drone pilot project. Finally, in order to facilitate claims by third parties, it is necessary to study how to establish specific policy language that addresses drone weight, location, and flight frequency.

• International Commerce and Information Review
• /
• v.15 no.2
• /
• pp.285-313
• /
• 2013

By the revision of the Commercial Code of Korea in 1991 and 2007, some provisions for the regulation of Time Charterparty have been introduced into our own maritime law system. But, those provisions are in their nature mainly the reproduction of the provisions prescribed in the standard forms of time charterparty which are widely used, such as BALTIME Charter and NYPE Form, and the subject matters of their regulation are restrictive, so that the applicability of the provisions is not desirable. The cargo is lost or damaged, the cargo owner should seek compensation form, or sue, the carrier as, traditionally, under the COGSA, the cargo carrier is responsible for loss of damage of cargo. However, it is difficult to determine who is the responsible carrier under charters. There is no test to determine the carrier, but the courts in every country generally consider the bill of lading. Although the master has general authority to sign bills of lading on behalf of the shipowner, he can also sign bills of lading for, and on behalf of, the charterer. In this case, the charter is considered the carrier. Furthermore, the charterer is authorized to contract with third parties on behalf of the shipowner and, as such, the responsible carrier is the shipowner. Therefore, when determining the carrier we should examine carefully the all factors and the circumstances surrounding the case. Also, negligence of a captain of a time-chartered ship causing damages to a third party. It will analyze the legal character of a time-charter contract, review judicial precedents on time-charter. The Inter-Club Agreement was drawn up and is intended to be a somewhat easier way of allocating liability for cargo claims between owners and charterers and, although there is still scope for disputes to arise, the Inter-Club Agreement does in fact to some extent make the allocation of liabilities for cargo claims easier. Finally, it will also make legislative suggestions to resolve complex issues involving maritime transportation contracts under the current Commercial Code.