• 무역상무연구
• /
• 제71권
• /
• pp.127-146
• /
• 2016

There are two aims of this research: one is to verify the role of bill of lading and the method of delivery for container goods and the other is to suggest alternative methods for the crisis of bill of lading; that is, goods are arrived in ports but bill of lading is not arrived. The results of the analyses are as follows. First, delivery of container goods should be performed to exchange with bill of lading. Carriers should deliver goods to consignees to exchange with one among the number of issued bill of lading. In addition, when goods are delivered to consignees by the bill of lading, the other bill of lading is invalid. Second, there are several methods of delivery which are not exchanged with bill of lading such as letter of guarantee, surrender bill of lading, sea waybill, non-negotiable straight bill of lading and consignment of bill of lading to a captain. Delivery of container goods should be performed by exchanging bill of lading. In addition, there are two delivery methods by letter of guarantee: one is illegal and the other is legal. If there is damage for a bonafide-fide holder of bill of lading, carriers should make compensation for the damage. These methods consist of the delivery of goods which is not exchanged with bill of lading and there are two advantages of the methods; one is that consignees enjoy saving bonded warehouse fee and quick disposal after arriving goods and the other is that carriers immediately use vessels after unloading containers. However, the methods are based on utmost good faith between a seller and a buyer.

• 무역상무연구
• /
• 제43권
• /
• pp.239-273
• /
• 2009

Marine insurance contracts, which intended to provide indemnity against marine risks upon the payment of a premium, originated in Northern Italy in the late 12th and early 13th centuries. The law and practice of Italian merchants were later introduced into England through Lombard merchants. It is, therefore, quite exact that English and Continental marine insurance law have common root. Nevertheless, some significant divergences between English and Continental marine insurance systems occurred since the late 17th century, mainly due to different approaches adopted by English courts. The rule of warranty in English marine insurance was established in the second part of the 18th century by Lord Mansfield, who laid the foundations of the modern English law of marine insurance and developed different approaches, especially in the field of warranty in marine insurance law. Since the age of Lord Mansfield, English marine insurance law has developed a unique rule on warranty. Bearing in mind the realities of the 18th century, it could easily be understood why Lord Mansfield afforded such a strict legal character to marine warranties. At that time, the 'promise' given by the assured, played an important role for the insurer to assess the scope of the risk. Legal environments, however, have changed dramatically since the times of Lord Mansfield. Of course, it is still important that the assured keep his promises to the insurer under the insurance contract, which is based upon utmost good faith. Nevertheless, the remedy of automatic discharge from liability, regardless of existence of a casual link between the breach and loss seems harsh in the realities of the 21st century. After examining the warranty regime adopted by the German and Norwegian hull clauses, it is fair to say that they provide a more equitable approaches for the assured than does English law. Therefore, this article suggests that English warranty regime needs overall reform and it is time to reform.