• Journal of Navigation and Port Research
• /
• v.38 no.5
• /
• pp.471-477
• /
• 2014

In general, a regular charterparty form is used as a charterparty for tugboats which are employed in marine construction and a bareboat charter form is generally used for barge boat charterparty. As the tug-barge charterparty which are currently used do not have a standardised form, contracting parties arbitrarily decide on the terms and conditions of the contract. As a result, provisions of the charterparty usually do not specify in the contract which party bears the burden of liability in case of accident. Furthermore, the terminologies used in the charterparty are different from legal terms of current commercial law which causes confusion. These problems can be solved mostly by clarifying the legal character of the charterparty between the contracting parties and by conforming the terminologies. In addition, endeavour to standardise the contract form must be carried forward at the same time. This research purports to study actual condition of current charterparty for tug-barge ship which are employed to marine construction and to suggest systematic improvement plan. For this purpose, this research focuses on studying cases in which dispute arose due to lack of clarity in the provisions of the contract with regard to which party bears the burden of liability in case of accident. This research also purports to suggest forming the standardised contract terms of the charterparty as one way of solution and examine matters to be attended in writing a standardised form.

• Journal of Korea Port Economic Association
• /
• v.29 no.1
• /
• pp.47-66
• /
• 2013

This article reviews some problems arises from signing by the master bills of lading issued on time chartered ship. The underlying purpose of time charters is generally for the charterers to have the services of the vessel in order to engage in the business of carriage of goods by sea, a business which is likely to involve the issue of bills of lading to shippers. Charterer under the charter have a right to issue B/L, thereby the master must sign bill of lading as presented, but may not vary the contract. Bills of lading signed by, or on behalf of the master, impose contractual liabilities upon the shipowner. Charterer have no right to ask the master to sign a bill of lading in any way deviating from the charterparty. If the shipowner suffers loss as a result of the master obeying any order about employment or agency, he will be entitled to an indemnity from the charterer. The master may refuse to sign bills of lading which contain some discrepancy such as a false statement and manifestly inconsistent with the requirements of the charterparty.

• Journal of Navigation and Port Research
• /
• v.39 no.1
• /
• pp.37-43
• /
• 2015

At marine construction sites, there are problems with regard to dispute on the responsibility of safety management of chartered barge and its legal issues. In general, demise charter with crew is used for barge charterparty which is committed to the marine construction. Although Chapter 5 of the Korean Commercial Act enact provisions regulating a Time Chargerparty and a Bareboat Charterparty, it is difficult to clarify where the responsibility lies with regard to the safety control of the chartered barge. For this reason, disputes on accountability arise when accident occurs in effect. As a result, parties of the charterparty shift the responsibility on each other and there is increased risk for occurrence of similar accidents. There is no legally required qualification for a head of barge workers who is in charge of barge management. It is not possible to demand the head of barge workers to take charge of tasks which requires professional judgment as a marine technician considering his daily work scope. Furthermore, the barge committed to the marine construction as a form of bareboat charter or equipment charterage is an object which should be managed by safety supervisor of the charterer's marine construction. The charterer bears a duty to manage the safety of the barge. Therefore, the charterer is generally liable for the damage incurred in the course of using the chartered barge.

• Journal of Korea Port Economic Association
• /
• v.24 no.2
• /
• pp.19-41
• /
• 2008

The purpose of this study aims to explore scope of damages resulted from early redelivery under time charter with the Golden Victory case. In this case, disputes arose in relation to the quantum of damages recoverable by th owners. The owners contended that the second Gulf War was irrelevant to their claim, which was to be assessed at the difference between the charter rate and the lower market rate for the whole of the remaining four-year period of the charterparty. The charterers contended that since clause 33 would have entitled them to cancel the charter on the outbreak of the second Gulf War, two years after the repudiation, the owners' claim for damages only ran for those two years. There was no such rule as was contended for by the owners, and that the damages had to reflect the fact that, had there been no repudiatory breach, the charterparty would not have run its full term because the charterers would have cancelled the charter on the outbreak of the second Gulf War.

• Journal of Korea Port Economic Association
• /
• v.28 no.1
• /
• pp.83-104
• /
• 2012

The main purpose of tramp ships in shipping markets is to produce operation profits by minimizing the running days in a contract of the voyage charterparty. It is an especially difficult task for the owners to earn operation profits in the present recessional shipping market. Tramp ships are moving towards globalization in order to look for a variety of cargoes, which are distinguished from the liners operating regularly as per the fixed time schedule. Tramp shipping, therefore, requires special attention every voyage to secure operation efficiency which comes from minimized sea and laytime in port. The laytime is allowed by owners but if the charterers use more laytime than that which is incorporated in the charterparty, then a compensation known as 'demurrage' must be paid to owners. Conversely if the time is shorter this is called 'despatch' and in this case the owners are paid. As the laytime issue in the voyage charter is somewhat delicate, it often causes much disputes between charterers and owners during the cargo handling in ports. This study focuses on the charterers' right and duty on the laytime which is usually applied for the benefit of the charterers. Reference is also made to English law cases to reinforce this study and the conclusion will make relevant suggestions for further research.

• 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.

• THE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE & LAW REVIEW
• /
• v.39
• /
• pp.251-280
• /
• 2008

A party to the charter will not be able to rely upon the doctrine of frustration if an event which makes further performance impossible has been caused by his breach of the charter. Strictly speaking, this is not a situation of frustration at all but rather a case of discharge of the contract by breach. In the Sea Angel case, the defendant entered into a Lloyd's Standard Form of Salvage Agreement with owners of the casualty on the LOF 2000 form, incorporating the SCOPIC clause. The time charter was on the terms of the Shelltime 4 form. This case the trial of the action brought by the claimants owners of the vessel Sea Angel claiming outstanding hire from the defendant charterers. This Case was issued whether charterparty frustrated by refusal of port authorities to issue "No Demand Certificate" allowing port clearance pending payment of oil spillage clean-up costs. The court concluded that no attempt had yet been made to invoke the assistance of the Pakistani court to obtain the release of the vessel. There was not so radical or fundamental a change in the obligation assumed by defendant as to establish frustration. The purpose of this study aims to analyse frustration and time charter in the Sea Angel case.

• Journal of Navigation and Port Research
• /
• v.37 no.6
• /
• pp.689-697
• /
• 2013

The demurrage is regarded as a kind of the ocean freight and a remuneration of the time lost for the vessel while in port. In ordinary occasions of the voyage charter, the liability of a demurrage is usually laid on the charterers unless any exceptions are incorporated. The owners are, however, often meeting somehow difficulty to secure demurrage in the field as the liability is limited or transferred to a third party from the charterers. This paper is focused on clearing the liabilities to be held by the parties involved through the English Law cases, and what's more is rendering a proper suggestions to the owners and charterers on dealing with the ship's operation business.

• The Journal of shipping and logistics
• /
• v.34 no.4
• /
• pp.583-613
• /
• 2018

This study analyse the safe port warranty undertaking for shipowner of time charterer with the Ocean Victory Case. Litigation ensued between those in the charterparty chain. When the hull insurer, Gard, took an assignment of the rights of the vessel's owners and demise charterers in a claim against the time charterers that the vessel had been ordered by them to an unsafe port in breach of the charter. Although the claim succeeded, the Court of Appeal overturned the decision. The Supreme Court delivered its judgment on May 10, 2017, dealing with three important issues, safe port, joint insurance, and limitation of liability. Especially on the safe port issue, the court held that the port was not unsafe within the meaning of the safe port undertaking so the charterers were not in breach of it. The conditions in the port amounted to an abnormal occurrence as that expression is understood.

• Journal of Korea Port Economic Association
• /
• v.29 no.4
• /
• pp.265-288
• /
• 2013

The purpose of the study aims to analyse the loss incurred by withdrawal of ship under time charter based on the English Law with the MT Kos case. In this case, it is agreed that if the charterers had begun to make arrangements for the discharge of their cargo as soon as they received the owner's notice of withdrawal, the vessel would have been detained at Angra doe Reis for one day. As it was, she was detained there for 2.64 days. The issue is whether the owners are entitled to be paid for the service of the vessel during that 2.62 days, and for bunkers consumed in the same period. Their claim is put forward on three bases: (1) under clause 13 of the charterparty ; (2) under an express or implied new contract made after the vessel was withdrawn, to pay for the time and bunkers; and (3) under the law of bailment. The judge held they were entitled to succeed on basis (3), but rejected every other basis which they put forward. The Court of Appeal rejected the claim on all three bases, except that they allowed the owners to recover the value of bunkers consumed in actually discharging the cargo.