• The KIPS Transactions:PartD
• /
• v.12D no.6 s.102
• /
• pp.869-874
• /
• 2005

In the recent years there has been an increase of service competition in the activity of product selling, especially in the extension of warranty coverage and qualify. The variables in connection with the service competition are not crisp, and required the expertise of the production line. It thus becomes all the more necessary to use subtler tools as decision supports. These problems are typical not only of product companies but also of financial organizations, credit institutions, insurance, which need predictions of credibility for firms or persons in which they have any kind of interest. A suitable approach for minimizing the risk is to use a knowledge-based system. Most often expert systems are not standalone programs, but are embedded into a larger application. The aim of this paper is to discuss an approach for developing an embedded fuzzy expert system with respect to the product selling policy, especially to present the decision system of automobile selling activity around the extension of warranty coverage and quality. We use the MATLAB tools which integrates computation, visualization, and programming in an easy-to-use environment where problems and solutions are expressed in familiar mathematical notation. Also, we present the API functions embedding into the existing application.

• Proceedings of KOSOMES biannual meeting
• /
• 2018.06a
• /
• pp.100-101
• /
• 2018

• 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.