• Journal of the Korean Society for Aviation and Aeronautics
• /
• v.12 no.3
• /
• pp.41-63
• /
• 2004

The area covered by product liability in broadest sense is so vast that an attempt to analyse all its impact on the aviation world risk. Every effort has been made to confine our review of subject a closely as possible to its influence on aircraft manufacturers, airlines and passengers, in spite of strong connections with other spheres of commercial. Product Liability in aviation is the liability of aircraft's manufacturer, processor or non-manufacturing seller for injury to the person or property of a buyer or third party caused by a product which has been sold. Here-in a product is aircraft, third party is passengers who suffered damage by defective design, defective construction, inadequate instructions for handling in aircraft. Whenever a product turns out to be defective after it has been sold, there are under Anglo-American law three remedies available against the aircraft's manufacturer (1) liability for negligence (2) breach of warranty (3) strict liability in tort. There are Under continental law Three remedies available against the aircraft's manufacturer (1) liability for defective warranty (2) liability for non-fulfillment of obligation (3) liability in tort. It is worth pointing out here an action for breach of warranty or for defective warranty, for non-fulfillment of obligation is available only to direct purchaser on the basis of his contract with the aircraft's manufacturer, which of course weakness its range and effectiveness. An action for tort offers the advantage of being available also to third parties who have acquired the defective product at a later stage. In tort, obligations are constituted not only by contract, but also by stature and common law. In conclusion, There in no difference in principle of law. In conclusion I would like to make few suggestions regarding the product liability for aircraft's manufacturer. Firstly, current general product liability code does not specify whether government offices(e.g. FAA) inspector conducted the inspection and auditory certificate can qualify as conclusive legal evidence. These need to be clarified. Secondly, because Korea is gaining potential of becoming aircraft's manufacturer through co-manufacturing and subcontracting-manufacturing with the US and independent production, there needs legislation that can harmonize the protection of both aircraft's manufacturers and their injured parties. Since Korea is in primary stage of aviation industry, considerate policy cannot be overlooked for its protection and promotion. Thirdly, because aircraft manufacturers are risking restitution like air-carriers whose scope of restitution have widened to strict and unlimited liability, there needs importation of mandatory liability insurance and national warranty into the product liability for aircraft's manufacturers. Fourthly, there needs domestic legislation of air transportation law that clearly regulates overall legal relationship in air transportation such as carrier & aircraft manufacturer's liability, and aviation insurance.

• THE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE & LAW REVIEW
• /
• v.62
• /
• pp.33-53
• /
• 2014

This study examines the seller's liability for defects in title of goods under SGA. If the contracting parties choose SGA as a governing law, they should pay attention to whether a contractual stipulation for defects in title of goods is a condition or a warranty. It is because SGA divides contractual terms into a condition and a warranty. And its effects regarding a breach of a condition or a warranty are different. Under SGA s 12(1) as a condition, in a contract of sale, the seller has a right to sell the goods at the time of contract, and in the case of an agreement to sell, he will have such a right at the time when the property is to pass. Under SGA s 12(2) as a warranty, there is an implied warranty that (a) the goods are free, and will remain free until the time when the property is to pass, from any charge or encumbrance and (b) the buyer will enjoy quiet possession of the goods as long as the buyer retains an interest in the goods. But the seller will not be liable if the third party unlawfully interferes with the buyer's possession.

• THE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE & LAW REVIEW
• /
• v.61
• /
• pp.139-163
• /
• 2014

Recently with making of 'The Consumer Insurance (Disclosure and Representations) Act 2012(hereunder CIA)', the UK revised the duty of disclosure especially with the consumer insurance contract. According to the CIA, if the misrepresentation was careless, the insurer may have the three options based upon what the insurer would have done had the consumer taken care to answer the question accurately; a compensatory remedy, avoidance of the insurance contract or, amendment of the contract. I realized that the establishment of CIA has been exposed to pro-actively relieve the breach of Warranty and Disclosure, Representations as far as required by the Global Insurance market. It was found that it is expected to bring significant changes in UK Insurance Act system of the 21st century, and prepares competition from neighboring countries. On the other hand, in the common law system, countries under MIA(1906) are trying to address the breach of warranty and Disclosure, Representations, except the UK cannot completely adhere with a positive attitude.

• The Journal of Information Technology
• /
• v.8 no.2
• /
• pp.27-42
• /
• 2005

The S.G. Policy form contains the words "the good ship or vessel called the.....". The words "good ship" mean that the ship is deemed to be seaworthy at the commencement of the voyage and this was very necessary in the day when a separate policy was issued for each voyage. In fact the warranty do seaworthiness still applies to all voyage policies. Nevertheless, the law does not apply an absolute warranty of seaworthiness to a time policy, so a ship is not required to be seaworthy at the time the hull policy is effected. The implied warranty of seaworthiness does not extend to good, for the underwriter is not responsible for their condition, apart fro the action of the perils insured against. The implied warranty of seaworthiness is limited to the vessel herself, and does not extend to a lighter or other craft used to convey the goods to the ship. The underwriters waive any breach of the implied warranties of the seaworthiness of the ship and fitness of the ship to carry the subject-matter insured to destination, unless the assured or their servants are privy to such unseaworthiness of unfitness.

• THE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE & LAW REVIEW
• /
• v.43
• /
• 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.

• Journal of Fisheries and Marine Sciences Education
• /
• v.6 no.1
• /
• pp.45-57
• /
• 1994

One of the fundamental duty of the assured in a marine insurance contract is maintaining seaworthiness of the ship insured. Since duty of the seaworthiness of ship is a shipowners implied warranty in the marine insurance, the breach of the duty of seaworthiness by assured is recognized as immunity for the underwriter. This is a measure to protect the underwriter through prevention of unexpected casualties which may be occurred from the unseaworthiness. In the Korean Marine Insurance Act the legal character of the assured's duty of seaworthiness is not clear whether it is a legal duty or contracted one. Accordingly, in this paper the author pointed out that the duty of seaworthiness of the ship should be interpreted according to the English Law. As a conclusion, the hull insurance does not require even implied warranty concerning seaworthiness, since it is recognized as one of implied fundamental warranty of the English Marine Insurance Act. Especially, this issue pointed out is very meaningful and advisable under the consideration of the existing conditions of the marine insurance regime for the distant-water fishing vessels and the catch carriers in Korea.

• Journal of the Korea Safety Management & Science
• /
• v.16 no.3
• /
• pp.307-316
• /
• 2014

In view of the increased threat arising terrorism, the International Maritime Organization(IMO) adopted the International Ship and Port Facility Security Code (ISPS Code) which attached to the SOLAS Convention. The ISPS Code requires a comprehensive set of measures to enhance the security of ships and port facilities. For example, a shipowner must obtain the International Ship Security Certificate(ISSC). If the carrying vessel has not ISSC, the ship may be detained by the contracting governments. The Joint Cargo Committee(JCC) in London adopted the Cargo ISPS Endorsement, in which the assured who knowingly ships the cargoes on a non-ISPS Code compliant vessel will have no cover. However, where there is no the Cargo ISPS Endorsement in a Marine Cargo Insurance Policy and the cargo is carried by a non-ISPS Code certified vessel, the legal problem is whether or not it would constitute a breach of an implied warranty of seaworthiness and/or an implied warranty of legality. The purpose of this article is to analyze the potential legal issue on the relations between non-ISPS Code compliant vessel and two implied warranties under Marine Insurance Act(1906) in U.K.

• 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.36 no.5
• /
• pp.329-338
• /
• 2012

The Institute Time Clauses-Hulls 1/10/83 has been using widely with attachment and/or endorsement of the Institute Warranties 1/7/76 stipulating vessel's trading limits. Taking into consideration of several changes and renewals on the contents of the Institute Time Clauses-Hulls for clarifying the clauses themselves with development on technology of vessel's construction and navigational equipments up to the present, the clauses on the Institute Warranties 1/7/76 should have been changed and/or renewed. Moreover, the insured still has been burdening additional premium in vessel's navigating and / or calling to the areas stipulated in the Institute Warranties 1/7/76 regardless of any changes of marine business environments. Thus, this study aims to analyze the Institute Warranties 1/7/76 as well as to suggest a reasonable level of additional premium for breach of Institute warranties through not only a comparative analysis between the Institute Warranties clauses and those of the corresponding Institute Warranties using in the Japanese Fire and Marine Insurance companies but also consideration of current circumstances on changes in climatic conditions, vessel design, navigation and communication requirements and capabilities.

• THE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE & LAW REVIEW
• /
• v.26
• /
• pp.203-223
• /
• 2005

Many international transactions involve the use of security devices, commonly referred to as "guarantees", "bonds", or "standby credits", designed to protect one of the parties from a breach by its counter-party. These security mechanisms may be provided by banks, insurance companies, specialized surety companies, or other financial service firms. Although some legal systems distinguish between "guarantees", "bonds", and "indemnities", these terms are often used as synonyms in the everyday language of international traders. It may therefore be necessary to examine the particular characteristics and nature of the guarantee obligation in order to properly classify the guarantee. Two main categories of guarantee are demand and suretyship. Under a demand guarantee, the guarantor must pay on first demand by the beneficiary. The beneficiary only has to demand payment under the guarantee - there is no need to prove that the principal has actually defaulted on a contractual obligation. Under a suretyship or conditional guarantee, the obligation of the guarantor is triggered by the actual default or contractual breach of the principal, as evidenced in a document such as a court judgement or arbitral award against the principal. Guarantees have been widely used in the international business transactions. Main uses of guarantees are as follows : Performance Bonds/Guarantees, Bid(or Tender) Bonds/Guarantees, Advance Payment or Repayment Bonds/Guarantees, Retention Bonds/Guarantees, Maintenance(or Warranty) Bonds/Guarantees etc.