PYRENE CO., LTD. V. SCINDIA STEAM NAVIGATION CO., LTD QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION [1954] 2 QB 402, [1954] 2 All ER 158, [1954] 2 WLR 1005, [1954] 1 Lloyd's Rep 321 HEARING-DATES: 15, 16, 17 March, 14 April 1954 HEADNOTE: By the Carriage of Goods by Sea Act, 1924 , Schedule, Article I (b): "'Contract of carriage' applies only to contracts of carriage covered by a bill of lading... In so far as such document relates to the carriage of goods by sea, including any bill of lading... Issued under or pursuant to a charter party from the moment at which such bill of lading... Regulates the relations between a carrier and a holder of the same". By Article I (e): "'Carriage of goods' covers the period from the time when the goods are loaded on to the time when they are discharged from the ship", and by Article II: "... Under every contract of carriage of goods by sea the carrier in relation to the loading, handling, stowage, carriage, custody, care, and discharge of such goods, shall be subject to the responsibilities and liabilities, and entitled to the rights and immunities hereinafter set forth". In August, 1948, the plaintiffs entered into a contract with the Government of India, through a department of the government ("I.S.D.") by which they agreed to sell to the Indian government a number of airfield crash tenders, F.O.B. London. All arrangements for the carriage of the goods were made by I.S.D. through their agents, who were also freight brokers for the plaintiffs and nominated one of the defendants' ships for loading under the contract. In April, 1951, the plaintiffs, in accordance with instructions issued by I.S.D., delivered one of the tenders to the Port of London for loading on board the ship. In the course of loading by the ... ... middle of paper ... ...oyd's Rep 240, the seller would appear to have performed the last act necessary to appropriate the goods to the contract - surely he could not realistically have recalled them at the time of the accident? But the conversion argument assumes that property was still vested in the seller, and indeed the seller's claim in tort also assumes this. The case may therefore suggest a strong reluctance of the courts to hold that property in an F.O.B. contract passes before shipment. 16. On the Hague Rules, Devlin J. did not care for the idea of rights and duties transferring back and forth as the cargo swung on the crane to and from over the ship's rail. Though these remarks are not addressed to the question of risk, they appear to be equally applicable. It has not been decided whether risk passes F.O.B. at the ship's rail, or at the end (or beginning) of the loading process.
SEKHAR v. UNITED STATES. The Oyez Project at IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law. 14 May 2014. .
and water.” Most transporters find loopholes to this law to ignore it, and it does not apply to any
R v Secretary of State for Transport, ex parte Factortame Ltd and others [1999] All ER (D) 1173.
Wade, T. D., Tiggemann, M., Bulik, C. M., Fairburn, C. G., FMedSci, Wray, N. R., Martin, N.
Trade and navigation acts- a series of laws that were setup to protect English shipping and secure money. As a result England became a successful ship building center and there were many new jobs.
Arnold & Porter chose to sue Pittston rather than the Buffalo Mining Company because the value of the corporation allowed for adequate compensation to the victims. Author and head lawyer for the plaintiffs, Gerald M. Stern, writes that the original goal was sue to sue for $21 million for the disaster to have a material effect on the cooperation (51). To avoid responsibility Pittston attempted to prove that the Buffalo Mining Company was an independent corporation with its own board of directors. The lawyers for the plaintiffs disproved this claim by arguing the Buffalo Mining Company never held formal meetings of the board of directors and was not independent of the parent company. During this case Pittston’s Oil division had applied to build an oil refinery in Maine. The ...
Generally speaking, the legal system didn¡¦t play a very active role in this case. First of all, the India government could do more on digging the truth of the gas leak out and set a more strict standard to regulate such dangerous plants in case that another crisis. Second, I didn¡¦t see any one who worked in the Union Carbide¡¦s Bhopal plant should be responsible for that tragedy. Does it mean that all that the India court wanted was money or it just wanted to reduce trial and subsequent appeals because it might have taken more than twenty years?
...useless car to a junk yard to recover some loss, but the difference of the re-sale of the junk-car would be a significant loss. Though there were no adequate assurances to the contract, anticipatory repudiation is the only probable remedy for Jack. However, the outcome would weigh on the predominant factor test, which is met because Tom is covered as a merchant because he is operating in his usual daily business, and Jack is the buyer. The sole purpose of the contract was for Tom to sell Jack a car, and for Jack to buy a car from Tom. The UCC, though less stringent than the statute of frauds, does effectively regulate commercial transfers allowing the free market to operate without diminishing the integrity of trade.
Container shipping industry is kind of international trade and destined restricted by los of regulation, such as ocean environment law, nation’s imports & exports law.
soon have several ships in port, agrees to part with a pound of flesh if the
Although merchant ships spend most of their lifetime outside the territorial waters, the current international maritime legal regime is ironically revolved around nationality of the vessel. Every vessel engaged in international trade must register in a country and is subjected to the regulatory control of that country whose flag it flies as per the existing international maritime law. Resultantly, any country has the right to allow a vessel to fly its national flag and to therefore bestow its nationality upon that vessel. When a vessel owner registers a vessel with a nation, the owner agrees to abide by that nation’s law and regulations of that ‘flag state’ in return for protection and the right of its vessel to be of that sovereign state. A system commonly known as “Flags of Convenience” (FOC) has developed, in which commercial vessels register in countries with “open registries” and consequently the ships contain practically no link at all to the flag states in which they are registered.
The freight rate is the price of the carrier that pays by the charterer or ship owner. Freight rate is compulsory and it is measures by the value of goods, point of destination and the travel distance due to land, air or ocean. Freight rate also include with the custom clearance process. It is demanded by the fluctuation of supply and demand, the bargaining power of shipper, the competitors with other logistic company and the availability or alternative of transport modes (lorry, train and ship) (The Challenges Facing The Maritime Transport Industry,
destination in the same condition as they began their journey, though other layers must be put in place to achieve a more comprehensive level of safety for vehicle and cargo transit. Lost or resting cargo containers and vehicles
For a CVC, there is a risk factor element for the owner as the owner will obtain lesser freight if the vessel does its voyage trip as quickly and consecutively due to weather issues or otherwise. Due to this peculiarity of this particular type of charter party, there is a tendency for the charterer to abuse it. As such, there should be an element of caution when it comes to determining rates of freight and