• THE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE & LAW REVIEW
• /
• v.59
• /
• pp.81-112
• /
• 2013

This article intends to examine main features of revision in relation to the duration of cover in the Institute Cargo Clauses 2009 and the results of analysis are as followings. First, the cover, which had been "warehouse to warehouse", has been extended to what may be called "shelf to unloading". Thus the insurance attaches when the goods are first moved within the warehouse or place of storage at the named place for the purpose of immediate loading for the commencement of transit. Secondly, the new termination Clause 8.1.3 requires an election by the assured, or their employees, to use a vehicle or container, for storage other than in the ordinary course of transit. Thirdly, Clause 10.1, which deals with the assured's voluntary change of voyage, was amended to solve the problem that the words "held covered" could be misunderstood by an assured without specialist knowledge of English marine insurance law to be a guarantee of cover, even where cover would not be commercially available. Finally, Clause 10.2 is designed to solve the so-called "phantom ship problem", arising from the harsh decision in The Prestrioka. The new Clause 10.2 provides protection for an innocent assured in the situation of a phantom ship.

• THE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE & LAW REVIEW
• /
• v.43
• /
• pp.337-370
• /
• 2009

The Joint Cargo Committee of International Underwriting Association of London (IUA) and Lloyd’s Market Association (LMA) have issued the revised version of Institute Cargo Clauses A, B, C, Institute Cargo Clauses (Air) and their accompanying War and Strikes Clauses. The Institute Cargo Clauses ("ICC") were last revised in 1982. Following a two year long consultation process, the latest edition of the ICC clauses became available to the Market on 1st January 2009. The overall result of the amendments to the 1982 ICC has been to create clearer policies that are more favourable to the Assured. Exclusions have also been amended to the advantage of the assured. The Transit Clause has seen a large revision, again more favourable to the Assured. The insurance now attaches within the warehouse or place of storage when the goods are "first moved$\cdots$ for the purpose of the immediate loading into or onto the carrying vehicle or other conveyance for the commencement of transit" whereas previously the insurance would not attach until the goods left the warehouse. Furthermore, the insurance now terminates on completion of unloading from the vessel at (rather than delivery to) the final warehouse or at a warehouse prior to the destination named in the contract of insurance which the Assured or their employees elect to use either for storage or distribution.

• 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.

• THE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE & LAW REVIEW
• /
• v.37
• /
• pp.61-85
• /
• 2008

Bills of lading are crucial in international sales on shipment terms since they guard buyers against loss of or damage to the goods in transit by giving them the rights against carriers. A bill of lading, as document of title, gives the buyer the right to demand physical possession of the goods from the carrier and enables the buyer who is in possession of damaged or short-delivered goods to sue the carrier. In this context the buyer in sales on CIF or CFR terms or FOB terms with additional services benefits from the bill of lading which functions as a receipt of goods and a evidence of the terms of the contract of carriage. Protection of such buyer's interests can be provided in the sale contract through appropriate express or implied terms on the seller's documentary obligations: Which transport document, a bill of lading or a sea waybill, is required? Who should be named as the consignee in the transport document and, in case of bill of lading, by whom should the bill be endorsed? What should be stated in the bill of lading for the quantity of the goods? How about a bill of lading that contains so called "unknown clause"? How many bills of lading for the entire contract goods should be tendered? Can a bill of lading stating that the goods have been shipped in apparent good order and condition also state that the goods were damaged after shipment? This paper seeks to provide answers for these particular questions.