• International Commerce and Information Review
• /
• v.8 no.4
• /
• pp.147-156
• /
• 2006

In all cargo cases one of the first things the person handling the claim must do is decide who is potentially liable as a carrier of the goods. This issue arises because bills of lading often do not identify the carrier. The "carrier" could be the shipowner or the charterer or both. The issue of the identity of the "carrier" is a question of fact. The question to ask in each case is who undertook or agreed to carry and deliver the goods. The answer to this question will largely depend on the facts. The shipowner is almost always liable as a carrier under Common law provided there is no demise charter of the ship. The more recent case law, however, suggests that in the usual situation both the charterer and shipowner will be liable. Accordingly, both the owner and charterer should be put on notice of any claim and, in the event an extension of suit time is required, the extension should be obtained from both. An alternative method by which the charterer can avoid liability is to insert and 'Identity of Carrier' clause in the bill of lading.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.30 no.4
• /
• pp.163-177
• /
• 2020

There are several ways to implement charter parties in the operation of the vessel. Under the time charter party, the charterer borrows the vessel from the shipowner and uses the vessel to benefit his business. The time charter party's legal relationship can be divided into internal and external relationships. This article deals with an internal relationship. The legal matters between the shipowner and charterer are regulated by the agreement. The NYPE is the most widely circulated type of time charter party. According to the NYPE, navigational matters fall upon the shipowner while business matter falls upon the time charterer. There are vague parts in interpreting NYPE articles. NYPE Art. 8, called the employment clause, is one of them. The Master employed by the shipowner should follow the order of the charterer. Whether the charterer has the right to order the Master of the vessel to follow the navigating route recommended by him was addressed in the Hill Harmony case by the UK Supreme Court. The court was affirmative. Under the Ocean Victory case, whether the time charterer has an obligation to order the Master to go out to escape heavy weather from the berth at the port was at issue. The Japanese lower court decided negatively. There is a tendency that many countries insert default rule in the maritime law to apply it to the case at issue in a case where there is no agreement. It serves the enhancement of legal stability; China, Japan, and Germany are such countries. The author thinks that Korea should follow the above three countries' revision of their maritime law.

• Korea Trade Review
• /
• v.45 no.4
• /
• pp.125-136
• /
• 2020

Freight charges are one of the major clauses in the voyage charter. However, in case of unexpected delays at loading and discharging ports, the owner of the ship would not be willing to cover the various costs he should bear by paying the freight receives from the charterer. Therefore, the shipowner, whose time and the ship would be both considered to be an expense, would try to reduce the laytime as least as possible when signing the charter party and to receive compensation such as demurrage and damage for detention from the charterer, just waiting for the agreed laytime to pass. In this study, we review the differences between demurrage and damage for detention and examine the acknowledgeable circumstances through the actual cases. Since the shipowner and the charterer do not often agree on the damage for detention from the respective contract, it is necessary to examine each. Besides, the shipowner and the charterer must acquaint the damage for detention and specify in a contract, to compensate for the actual loss of the shipowner.

• THE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE & LAW REVIEW
• /
• v.69
• /
• pp.327-348
• /
• 2016

Under the Korean legal system, as an actual carrier is not the contractual party to the contract for carriage of goods by sea, it has been tortiously liable for the damage to, or loss of cargo, should there be the negligence by its part. However, the Rotterdam Rules introduces a revolutionary liability regime for the actual carrier. According to the Rotterdam Rules, the liability of the actual carrier is same with that of a contractual carrier with the result that a shipper is entitled to bring the direct action to the actual carrier, as well as the contractual carrier on the same basis. Nevertheless, it is expected to take long time for the new approach in respect of actual carrier's liability to be confirmed by many countries, and furthermore most of shipping countries including Korea still adopt the Hague-Vis by Rules where the shipper is not allowed to bring the direct action to the actual carrier. This study reviews on whether or not the alteration of actual carrier's liability based on Rotterdam Rules would be reasonable, considering the current Korean legal system. Furthermore, this study, whilst recognizing that the overall introduction of the new liability regime is somewhat premature, suggests the imposition of contractual liability to the actual carrier from a long-term perspective. Having in mind that the article 809 of the Korean Commercial Act allows the shipper to bring the direct action to the shipowner only in the case that a time charterer is the contractual carrier, this study explores a method to apply the contractual liability to the actual carrier in the case that a slot charterer or freight forwarder is the contractual carrier, in order to establish the uniform liability system.

• 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.

• THE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE & LAW REVIEW
• /
• v.11
• /
• pp.205-223
• /
• 1998

• Journal of Korea Port Economic Association
• /
• v.29 no.1
• /
• pp.47-66
• /
• 2013

This article reviews some problems arises from signing by the master bills of lading issued on time chartered ship. The underlying purpose of time charters is generally for the charterers to have the services of the vessel in order to engage in the business of carriage of goods by sea, a business which is likely to involve the issue of bills of lading to shippers. Charterer under the charter have a right to issue B/L, thereby the master must sign bill of lading as presented, but may not vary the contract. Bills of lading signed by, or on behalf of the master, impose contractual liabilities upon the shipowner. Charterer have no right to ask the master to sign a bill of lading in any way deviating from the charterparty. If the shipowner suffers loss as a result of the master obeying any order about employment or agency, he will be entitled to an indemnity from the charterer. The master may refuse to sign bills of lading which contain some discrepancy such as a false statement and manifestly inconsistent with the requirements of the charterparty.

• THE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE & LAW REVIEW
• /
• v.35
• /
• pp.71-98
• /
• 2007

UCP 600 approved at the Banking Commission Meeting of ICC at the end of October, 2006 comes into effect from July 1, 2007. The main revision of the UCP 600 concerning the sea transport document are as follows. First, if the bill of lading contains an on-board-notation, with the date of shipment, the date stated in the on-board-notation will be deemed the date of shipment. Secondly, phrases "on its face" and "otherwise authenticated" should be eliminated. Thirdly, when an agent signs for or signs on behalf of the master, there is no longer a need for the name of master to be quoted. Fourthly, the terminology "loading on-board or shipped on a named vessel" is changed to "shipped on-board a named vessel." Fifthly, phrases "the rejection of the documents transported only by sail" is removed. Finally, new rule in UCP is the signing of a charter party bill of lading by the charterer or a named agent on behalf of the charterer. My assessment of the revision in UCP 600 is as follows: Because a freight forwarder transport document is a weaker form than a liner bill of lading as collateral, banks may need a secure measure as to protect themselves from such a weak collateral effect. we recognize that Such a weak collateral effect stemmed from the elimination of rules in UCP 500 article 30, and the admission of transport documents issued by the freight forwarder as long as any one besides carrier, shipper, and charterer satisfies the requirements of transport document clauses in UCP 600. Finally, I hope the Commentary on UCP 600 will serve to explain the ambiguities remaining in the new rules.

• 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 Navigation and Port Research
• /
• v.39 no.1
• /
• pp.37-43
• /
• 2015

At marine construction sites, there are problems with regard to dispute on the responsibility of safety management of chartered barge and its legal issues. In general, demise charter with crew is used for barge charterparty which is committed to the marine construction. Although Chapter 5 of the Korean Commercial Act enact provisions regulating a Time Chargerparty and a Bareboat Charterparty, it is difficult to clarify where the responsibility lies with regard to the safety control of the chartered barge. For this reason, disputes on accountability arise when accident occurs in effect. As a result, parties of the charterparty shift the responsibility on each other and there is increased risk for occurrence of similar accidents. There is no legally required qualification for a head of barge workers who is in charge of barge management. It is not possible to demand the head of barge workers to take charge of tasks which requires professional judgment as a marine technician considering his daily work scope. Furthermore, the barge committed to the marine construction as a form of bareboat charter or equipment charterage is an object which should be managed by safety supervisor of the charterer's marine construction. The charterer bears a duty to manage the safety of the barge. Therefore, the charterer is generally liable for the damage incurred in the course of using the chartered barge.