• 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.

• THE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE & LAW REVIEW
• /
• v.23
• /
• pp.155-219
• /
• 2004

This paper focuses on two recent legislative developments in electronic commerce: the "Uniform Computer Information Transactions Act" ("UCITA") of USA and the "preliminary draft convention on the use of data message in [international trade] [the context of international contracts]" ("preliminary draft Convention") of UNCITRAL. UCITA provides rules contracts for computer information transactions. UCITA supplies modified contract formation rules adapted to permit and to facilitate electronic contracting. UCITA also adjusts commonly recognized warranties as appropriate for computer information transactions; for example, to recognize the international context in connection with protection against infringement and misappropriation, and First Amendment considerations involved with informational content. Furthermore, UCITA adapts traditional rules as to what is acceptable performance to the context of computer information transactions, including providing rules for the protection of the parties concerning the electronic regulation of performance to clarify that the appropriate general rule is one of material breach with respect to cancellation (rather than so-called perfect tender). UCITA also supplies guidance in the case of certain specialized types of contracts, e.g., access contracts and for termination of contracts. While for the most part carrying over the familiar rules of Article 2 concerning breach when appropriate in the context of the tangible medium on which the information is fixed, but also adapting common law rules and rules from Article 2 on waiver, cure, assurance and anticipatory breach to the context of computer information transactions, UCITA provides a remedy structure somewhat modeled on that of Article 2 but adapted in significant respects to the different context of a computer information transaction. For example, UCITA contains very important limitations on the generally recognized common law right of self-help as applicable in the electronic context. The UNCITRAL's preliminary draft Convention applies to the use of data messages in connection with an existing or contemplated contract between parties whose places of business are in different States. Nothing in the Convention affects the application of any rule of law that may require the parties to disclose their identities, places of business or other information, or relieves a party from the legal consequences of making inaccurate or false statements in that regard. Likewise, nothing in the Convention requires a contract or any other communication, declaration, demand, notice or request that the parties are required to make or choose to make in connection with an existing or contemplated contract to be made or evidenced in any particular form. Under the Convention, a communication, declaration, demand, notice or request that the parties are required to make or choose to make in connection with an existing or contemplated contract, including an offer and the acceptance of an offer, is conveyed by means of data messages. Also, the Convention provides for use of automated information systems for contract formation: a contract formed by the interaction of an automated information system and a person, or by the interaction of automated information systems, shall not be denied on the sole ground that no person reviewed each of the individual actions carried out by such systems or the resulting agreement. Further, the Convention provides that, unless otherwise agreed by the parties, a contract concluded by a person that accesses an automated information system of another party has no legal effect and is not enforceable if the person made an error in a data message and (a) the automated information system did not provide the person with an opportunity to prevent or correct the error; (b) the person notifies the other party of the error as soon as practicable when the person making the error learns of it and indicates that he or she made an error in the data message; (c) The person takes reasonable steps, including steps that conform to the other party's instructions, to return the goods or services received, if any, as a result of the error or, if instructed to do so, to destroy such goods or services.

• The Korean Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy
• /
• v.29 no.2
• /
• pp.55-86
• /
• 2014

The U.S. General Aviation Revitalization Act of 1994 (the "GARA") created a statute of repose that bars any claims arising from an aviation product or component more than 18 years after its date of delivery. The statute was enacted to protect general aviation aircraft manufacturers from the excessive product liability costs. The GARA included four exceptions: (a) medical emergency patients, (b) those not on the aircraft, (c) those based on written warranties, and (d) those causally related to a "knowing misrepresentation" made by the manufacturer to the FAA. The GARA also incorporates a provision for revised starting point of reckoning to which any repairs or replacements of an aviation product. This note aimed to discuss General Aviation and GARA in depth including the meaning of statue of repose, its exceptions. The various precedents about GARA were also reviewed in here as well. From the GARA, as a comparative legal issue in aviation product liability, there can be some suggestions for revision of Korean Products Liability Act. First, it seems to be reasonable to regulate the specific statute of repose provisions for various category of products. In GARA, the period of 18 years is reasonable concerning to the average aircraft life. Second, in order to avoid exhausting debate and for the judicial economy, it needs to clarify when the statute begins to run. GARA's 18 year limitation period begins to run on the different date whether it was delivered to its first purchaser or a person engaged in the business of selling the aircraft. Last but not least, proper exceptions should be added into the law for equity matter of the statute of repose does not apply. For example, a manufacturer is not protected by GARA if it knowingly misrepresents certain safety information to the FAA.