• THE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE & LAW REVIEW
• /
• v.57
• /
• pp.137-169
• /
• 2013

This article intends to analyse some features in Exclusion Clauses of the Institute Cargo Clauses 2009 and the results of analysis are following. First, the insufficiency of packing or preparation exclusion under the revised Clause 4.3 is now more limited than before and the Clause suggest the test of sufficiency or suitability "to withstand the ordinary incidents of the insured transit". Secondly, the word "proximately" was deleted under the revised Clause 4.5 for the insurer to be identified more easily as a cause, but it remains to be seen whether that re-drafting will be successful. Thirdly, The exclusion under the revised Clause 4.6 does not apply unless the insurer can prove that, at the time the subject-matter insured is loaded on board the vessel, the assured was aware, or in the ordinary course of business should have been aware, that the relevant insolvency or financial default could prvent the normal prosecution of the voyage, and to a person who purchase the goods from the assured in good faith under a binding contract. Fourthly, the exclusion in respect of unseaworthiness of vessel under Clause 5.1.1 applies only where the assured is privy to the unseaworthiness, whereas the exclusion in respect of unfitness of container or conveyance under Clause 5.1.2 includes the privity of the employee. Finally, Clause 7 establishes the definition of terrorism, and adds ideological and religious motive to political motive.

• Journal of the Korean Institute of Navigation
• /
• v.15 no.3
• /
• pp.53-72
• /
• 1991

The marine cargo insurance compensates the cargo losses that happened during navigation . at the early days of the marine insurance, the insurer inclusively covered all risks that happended during navigation. But since the feature of the risks have been changed due to the development of the shipbuilding technique and commerce, the insurer could not bear all of the perils inclusively. So, the insurer have taken the limitation of the risks insured and the losses paid by exclusion clauses. Therefore, the purpose ;of this paper is to compare the exclusion clauses in the new Institute Cargo Clause (hereafter I.C.C.) with those in the former I.C.C.(all risks, F.P.A) and to make clear the scope of insurer's liability through the theoretical interpretation, clarification of various excluded risks in laws and clauses relating to marine cargo insurance. From what 1 mentioned above, 1 conclude that through continued study on the exclusion sin the new I.C.C., we should organize and establish a system which will satisfy both underwriters and the assured in making the application and the effectiveness equal for each party.

• THE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE & LAW REVIEW
• /
• v.43
• /
• pp.275-295
• /
• 2009

After a long period of development and worldwide consultation, the London-based Joint Cargo Committee has revised the Institute Cargo Clauses (A), (B) & (C) and some ancillary Institute Clauses. The revision mainly include a clarification of the exclusions within the clauses, some modernization of the language of the clauses and new definitions of some terms. With these revisions, the coverage is widened to offer more protection to the assured. This may enable the widely used Institute Cargo Clauses to receive even greater worldwide acceptance. The following are the main changes in the new 2009 ICC compared with the 1982 ICC. 1. Insufficient or unsuitable Packing or Preparation(Clause 4.3): The revised clause is more favourable to the assured because under the revised clause this sub-clause is only applicable to (a) where packing or preparation is carried out by the assured or their employees or (b) packing or preparation takes place before the attachment of the risk. 2. Insolvency or Financial Default (Clause 4.6): The insolvency and financial default wording is incorporated in the revised clauses, making it more favourable to the assured. 3. Unseaworthiness (Clause 5): The revision is more favourable to the assured in that it limits the exclusion in relation to the unfitness of vehicles, vessels or containers to cases where the assured or their employees are privy to such unfitness. 4. Terrorism (Clause 7): A new definition of "terrorism" is introduced and the revised clause also widens the acts of an individual to encompass ideological and religious motives.

• THE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE & LAW REVIEW
• /
• v.32
• /
• pp.29-56
• /
• 2006

This article primarily concerns the various aspects of the rules to control express terms particularly in standard form which seek to absolve either wholly or in part from the seller's liability for non-conforming goods. It describes and analyzes in detail how English law regulates such terms. In this analysis, it places the following questions; first, whether each jurisdiction treats the seller's liability for non-conformity in quality and quantity as mandatory rules, second, if it does, to what extent it is treated so and third, if not, in what way it controls the seller's attempt to exclude or restrict his liability for non-conformity in quality and quantity. In addition, it attempts to compare the rules under English law with those under Korean law and to evaluate them in light of the discipline of comparative law. In an attempt to evaluate them, it asks the question of whether a solution from one jurisdiction may facilitate the systematic development and reform of another jurisdiction. The evaluation is based upon the idea that the problems of fairness associated with the use of standard terms occur where the customer is unfairly taken by surprise due to his ignorance of the terms, or where even if he knows of the substance of the terms and objects to it, he is met with a take-it-or-leave-it situation.

• Journal of Agricultural Extension & Community Development
• /
• v.23 no.4
• /
• pp.361-374
• /
• 2016

This study examined the regulation status on wastewater treatment in agro-food processing and a case study on effluent treatment m ethods was carried out to evaluate any change after the mitigation of regulation. First, in order to clarify the area of investigation, the definition of small-scale agro-processing facilities was reviewed through literature survey and local government ordinance. The current law were separately analyzed into four areas; effluent treatment facilities, development of agro-processing industries, land use and food processes equipment. The exclusion clauses on wastewater discharging facility in the enforcement regulation were defined in detail, which can be served in practice. Site survey, after the questionnaire survey of the person in charge of the local unit, was carried out. As the result, this survey confirmed the positive effects of the deregulation on promoting sewer system service in rural areas, introducing the new processing construction and so on. In addition, it was found that some matters to be considered to determine whether to introduce wastewater treatment plan for public food processing facilities.

• Journal of the Korean Institute of Navigation
• /
• v.18 no.3
• /
• pp.51-79
• /
• 1994

Section 55 (1) of the Marine Insurance Act 1906 states that the insurer is liable for any loss proximately caused by a peril insured against but is not liable for any loss not proximately caused by a peril insured against. It is, therefore, essential to determine whether it is to be recoverable under the Marine Insurance Policy attaching the Institute Cargo or Hull Clauses. But a number of important losses are excluded from the policy by subsection 2 of the same section, unless the policy otherwise provides, although these losses are proximate causes of them. The purpose of this study is to investigate the meaning of proximate cause and excluded losses in the Act. The method of this study is a literature survey. In summary, (1) if the loss is considered to have been proximately caused by a certain peril, and the peril is insured against, the claim is recoverable, (2) if there are different causes resulting in separate losses, the claims recoverable will be those due to insured perils, (3) when the effective cause of the loss is established, remote causes can be ignored, (4) when causes of loss are combined, the claim is recovera-ble if the cause which is proximate in efficiency is an insured peril, (5) if there are two causes, equal in efficiency, the loss is recoverable if one of the causes is an insured peril, but always providing the other cause is merely an uninsured peril rather than a specific exclusion, (6) although certain losses are exclu-ded by section 55 (2) of the Act, with the exception of wilful misconduct of the insured, it is permitted for provision to be made in the policy to widen the terms to include such losses.