• 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.

• 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.

• THE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE & LAW REVIEW
• /
• v.42
• /
• pp.189-210
• /
• 2009

The United Nations General Assembly adopted the United Nations Convention on Contracts for the International Carriage of Goods Wholly or Partly by Sea(hereinafter referred to as "The Rotterdam Rules") on 11 December 2008. Rotterdam Rules aims to create a contemporary and uniform law providing for modern door-to-door container transport including an international sea leg. but not limited to port-to port carriage of goods. The structure of the liability regime in Rotterdam Rules are globally close to that of the Hague-Visby Rule even though it differs from that of the Hague-Visby Rules in some significant aspects. The Rotterdam Rules are very long. Therefore the Rotterdam Rules will be difficult to understand for even the skilled ship operator or owner or charterer or shipper or consignee or receiver because they are so complicated. This paper only seeks to highlight the salient features of the liability and limitation of liability regime under the Rotterdam Rules. It is expected that the harmonization and modernization of the international legal regime. coupled with the bold attempt to balance the carrier and cargo interests should lead to an overall reduction in transaction costs. increased predictability and greater commercial confidence for international business transactions.

• 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.

• 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 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 Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.14 no.2
• /
• pp.281-300
• /
• 2004

This paper is about a case on the arbitration of disputes between the parties of charter party. 'B' vessel owner on the original charter party first made a charter party with 'L' cargo owner on the original charter party. Then, 'B' entered into another charter party with 'D' vessel owner, who will actually take charge of carriage of the cargoes which is described on the original charter party. Therefore, 'B' is a carrier of cargoes of 'L' and 'D' is a carrier of cargoes of 'B', according to the contracts. The cargoes of 'B' is cargoes of 'L', by nature. In these circumstances, damages to the cargoes occurred in the transit by the vessel of 'D'. Who should take the responsibility for the damage of cargoes? Who must be liable for those, 'B' or 'D'？. According to the original charter party, 'L' signed 'as Charterers' and 'B' was the counterpart of 'L'. But 'B' signed as 'for and on behalf of 'B',' without 'as Owners'. Tribunal of arbitration award that 'B' should take the responsibility for the damage to the cargoes, because 'B' is the vessel owner. Although 'B' is a contract carrier, 'B' must bear the liability of transport of the cargoes. The counterpart of charterer, 'L' is 'B' who is presumed to be the vessel owner by the original charter party. 'D', actual carrier is not the privy of 'L', cargo owner. This case teach us that signature on the contract is the matter of great importance.

• 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.