• International Commerce and Information Review
• /
• v.11 no.1
• /
• pp.291-308
• /
• 2009

The implied obligation under the contract of affreightment not to carry dangerous goods without prior notice to the carrier applies to the contractual relationship between the charterer and the owner under charterparties. The charterers will be in breach of an implied undertaking under the common law if they load dangerous cargoes without making notice of dangerous nature of them to the owner. It is indicated to be necessary to change the term "shipper" to "charterer", with relation to such implied obligation, where the Hague/Hague-Visby Rules are incorporated into the charter, however, it is not so apparent where an actual shipper is involved. So long as an actual shipper could be identified, the shipper rather than the charterer shall be responsible for damages arising from the dangerous nature of the cargo itself. In this case, the actual shipper is interpreted to have an implied contractual relationship with the carrier just by the act of delivering the cargo to the carrier for loading. If the vessel were damaged by shipment of the dangerous cargo under charterparty, the carrier can claim against such damages based on the contractual obligations under charterparties: "implied and expressed duty not to ship dangerous cargo without notice to the carrier"; "Art.IV.6 of the Hague/Hague-Visby Rules"; "Indemnity Clause" and "Redelivery Clause". The carrier has the conventional right under the Hague/Hague-Visby Rules to land, destroy or render the goods innocuous where the dangerous cargo threatens the means of transport or other interests on board. When the carrier has not consented to make the shipment, the carrier's disposal right could be exercised without limitation. However, where the carrier has consented to make the shipment of the dangerous goods with the knowledge concerned, the right of disposal of such goods should be exercised with limitation.

• 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.

• Journal of Korea Port Economic Association
• /
• v.29 no.4
• /
• pp.27-53
• /
• 2013

It is a generalized way for the chartering business to fix the laytime bars except rarely adapting the customary despatch of the cargo work in port. The way of customary despatch is usually accepted by the owners in case the port facilities and other relevant infrastructures are in the satisfactory level for the cargo work whereas the laytime bars to be widely incorporated in the chaterparty for almost all occasions for owners and charterers to bind each other in loading and discharging cargo in port. The main purpose of establishing laytime bars on the charterparty is to secure the right and duty for both parties of the owners and the charterers, and furthermore to make the vessel despatched quickly from the port, whereby the costs incidental to the loading and discharging in port to be saved as much as possible. and the minimized costs in port will contribute to the profits in all parties involved in loading and discharging cargo. The conditions and terms on the laytime bars are expressed variously in their kinds according to the types of the charterparty to be used. The owners and charterers or the ship operators, however, seems not to be so accustomed in lawful understanding on these terms and conditions, and therefrom lots of disputes are noticed practically in the business field. As a result, this study is focused to render the owners and charterers rather clear understanding on their meanings and effects in legal aspects, and the various English Law Cases are referred in order to achieve the purpose of this study.

• 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.

• 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 Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.12 no.2
• /
• pp.303-336
• /
• 2003

Incorporation of an arbitration clause by reference to other documents occurs in many international business transactions. The reference is either to another document that contains arbitration clause or to trading rules which contain the arbitration clause, without the main contract mentioning that arbitration has been agreed upon. In fact, incorporation by reference in to a contract of an arbitration clause set forth in another agreement is deemed valid in any number of circumstances, even when the parties to the two contractual instruments are not the same. Difficulties arise when, instead of an express arbitration provision, a contract contains a clause which refers to the trading rules of a certain trade association, so-called external arbitration clause. The U.S. courts which will presume that the parties intended to arbitrate under a particular set of rules when they expressly mentioned arbitration in their agreement, have sometimes refused to enforce contract clauses that do no more than refer to particular trading rules, even if these rules contain provisions binding the parties to arbitrate their disputes. The courts in such cases tend to be careful in determinig whether intent to arbitrate is present. In maritime contracts, the arbitration clause in a charter party is often referred to in the bill of lading. Such reference usually is held binding upon the parties to the contract of carriage, their knowledge of such practice being presumed. A nonsignatory may compell arbitration against a party to an arbitration agreement when that party has entered into a separate contractual relationship with the nonsignatory which incorporates the existing arbitration clause. If a party's arbitration clause is expressly incorporated into a bill of lading, nonsignatories … who are linked to that bill … may be bound to the arbitration agreement of others. An arbitration clause in a charterparty will be incorporated into a bill of lading if either - (a) there are specific words of incorporation in the bill, and the arbitration clause is so worded as to make sense in the context of the bill, and the clause dose not conflict with the express terms of the bill; or (b) there are general words of incorporation in the bill, and the arbitration clause or some other provision in the charter makes it clear that the clause is to govern disputes under the bill as well as under the charter. In all other cases, the arbitration clause is not incorporated into the bill.