• 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.69
• /
• pp.407-426
• /
• 2016

The Marine Insurance Act 1906 (MIA 1906) has been a successful piece of legislation, having rarely been amended and having established, or served as an influence in the development of, the basis of marine insurance legislation in several countries. However, it has been recognised that some parts of the MIA 1906 have begun to show their antiquated nature, especially where established principles which were once thought to reflect undoubted propositions of law are now being openly criticised. Since 2006, the Law Commission and Scottish Law Commission (the 'Law Commissions') have been engaged in a major review of insurance contract law, finally leading to the Insurance Act 2015. The Insurance Act 2015 received Royal Assent on 12 February 2015, and was based primarily on the joint recommendations of the Law Commissions. The 2015 Act made substantial changes to several main areas of marine insurance law & practice: (i) the replacement of the pre-contractual duty of disclosure with a duty to make a "fair presentation of the risk"; (ii) the abolition of the "insurance warranty" under the Marine Insurance Act 1906, s.33, and provision of a new default remedy of suspension of liability until the breach is cured; (iii) partial codification of the fraudulent claims rule in insurance contract law, etc. The Act did not provide for any new statutory duty for insurers to investigate or pay claims in a timely fashion, although this may be revisited in the next Parliament. Moreover, the Law Commissions have reopened their consideration of the doctrine of insurable interest. The 2015Actmay not then signal the end of the legislative programme in this area.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.15 no.2
• /
• pp.125-162
• /
• 2005

This paper examined excluded risks of insurer in marine insurance generally, and found out the existing studies on the excluded risks, which were accomplished partially and fragmentarily, to conduct a comparative analysis of marine insurance based on the general flow of claim adjustment. It arranges the existing studies to settle a dispute between the parties -insurer and assurer- and studies the excluded risk based on risk change of the insured by analyzing characteristic and class of security violation, and meaning, form, effect of risk change. it inquires into and analysis cases of the Korean Supreme Court related to the exclusion and illegal act of marine insurance to compare marine theorists' opinion with commercial law.

• Journal of the Microelectronics and Packaging Society
• /
• v.22 no.2
• /
• pp.1-4
• /
• 2015

Qualification includes all activities to demonstrate that a product meets and exceeds the reliability goals. Manufacturers need to spend time and resources for the qualification processes under the pressure of reducing time to market, as well as offering a competitive price. Failure to qualify a product could result in economic loss such as warranty and recall claims and the manufacturer could lose the reputation in the market. In order to provide valid and reliable qualification results, manufacturers are required to make extra effort based on the operational and environmental characteristics of the product. This paper discusses optimal interval censoring design for reliability prediction of electronic packages under limited time and resources. This design should provide more accurate assessment of package capability and thus deliver better reliability prediction.

• THE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE & LAW REVIEW
• /
• v.66
• /
• pp.25-46
• /
• 2015

The purpose of this paper is to provide a legal implication about conformity of goods in the international commercial transactions. There are so many legal relationship after the formation of contract. The most of important thing among the obligations of seller is to provide conformal goods which are of quantity, quality and description required by the contract and which are contained or packaged in the manner required by the contract. If seller violate above duties, seller take the warranty liability. However, CISG describe the conformity of the goods instead of the warranty as follows. First, CISG Art.35(1) states standards for determining whether goods delivered by the seller conform to the contract and Art.35(2) describes standards relating to the goods' quality, function and packaging that, while not mandatory, are presumed to be a part of sales contracts. Article 35(2) is comprised of four subparts. Two of the subparts (article 35(2) (a) and article 35(2)(d)) apply to all contracts unless the parties have agreed otherwise. Second, CISG Art.36 and 38 deals with the time at which a lack of conformity in the goods must have arisen in order for the seller to be liable for it. If seller lack of conformity becomes apparent only after that time, seller is liable for a lack of conformity existing when risk passed to the buyer. Third, CISG Art.49 describe that a buyer who claims that delivered goods do not conform to the contract has an obligation to give the seller notice of the lack of conformity. The most of important things about CISG articles and precedents is that buyer is aware of the lack of conformity and notice it to seller. Failure to satisfy the notice requirements of article 39 eliminates a buyer's defence, based on a lack of conformity in delivered goods, to a seller's claim for payment of the price. Consequently, parties of contract had better agree to the notifying times about lack of conformity. Also, If seller fined the non-conformity, seller has to notify this circumstance to the buyer within short period or agreed time.

• Journal of the military operations research society of Korea
• /
• v.36 no.1
• /
• pp.77-90
• /
• 2010

Adapting commercial equipments to military operations may provide the advantage of low cost, reduced acquisition time, and technology advancement. On the other hand, it may also offer the opportunity for a reliability and logistics risk because commercial products, standards, and practices may not meet military requirements. In addition to this, commercial vendors have little experience in providing the technical data required to support military deployment logistics. As more companies are equipped with data aquisition systems for their products, considerable amount of field warranty data has been accumulated. Typically, the field data for a given product comprise with the sales volume and the number of the claims for each period. Three types of product data are considered in this study: military designed equipment operating in a military environment, commercial equipment operating in a military environment, and commercial equipment operating in a commercial environment. We construct a estimation model for each type of data and propose an reliability transform method from a commercial environment to a military environment. Parametric methods for estimating the product reliability are proposed based on maximum likelihood criteria and least square criteria. Then a reliability transform procedure for handling different types of data is proposed in a consistent fashion. A case study is investigated to characterize our model based on a real field warranty data set.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.10 no.1
• /
• pp.92-113
• /
• 2000

Products liability refers to the liability of any or all parties along the chain of manufacture of any product for damage caused by that product. This includes the manufacturer of component parts (at the top of the chain), an assembling manufacturer, the wholesaler, and the retail store owner (at the bottom of the chain). Products containing inherent defects that cause harm to a consumer of the product, or someone to whom the product was loaned, given, etc., are the subjects of products liability suits. The goal of products liability system should be to maximize consumer welfare by efficiently providing just compensation for injuries incurred and deterring future injuries without unreasonably impeding the supply of the goods and services to consumers. Some advanced countries, apart from relying on products liability systems, also apply other policies and legislation directly aimed at the safety of the consumer. The application of general safety policies as well as products liability rules is not costless. An efficient system will not eliminate risk from society. An efficient system ... that maximises consumer welfare ... maximises the benefits while minimising the costs. Products liability claims can be based on negligence, strict liability, or breach of warranty of fitness depending on the jurisdiction where the claim is based. In view of international business and law circumstances, it should be stressed that international enterprises in Korea should consider how to cope with the situation of international transaction. International enterprises should have a correct perception about products liability which is to contribute the stabilization and improvement of the people's life and the sound develpement of the national economy. Products liability system creates incentives that influence behaviour and performance in ways that are desirable, such as more diligent monitoring to prevent defective products from reaching the market-place. At the same time, any liability system will impose burdens that are undesirable, such as greater costs imposed on business and consumers and reduced avaiability of consumer goods. The concern for society is to balance. The ideal situation is where the cost imposed on producers of goods and services pushes them to a desirable level of care but not so far that producers reach undesirable level of caution that may deprive consumers unnecessarily of the benefits from new and innovative products.