QUESTION 1 Do you agree with the criticism that the English law on the safe port obligation in a voyage charterparty is not only messy and inconsistent, but actually does not promote the wider policy objective of maritime safety? Please give reasons for your reasons and use case law.
QUESTION 2 Tom, is the owner of an oil tanker, The Globule. He agreed to allow Dick to take the vessel on time charter for a period of 7 to 9 months at the charterer’s option. The agreement was on an Amended New York Produce Exchange form. Amongst other clauses, the agreement provide for:
Clause 2; the charterers were to provide and pay for all bunkers used while the vessel was on hire and all other usual charges. Clause 8; the master, was to prosecute voyages with utmost dispatch and although appointed by owners was to be under the orders and directions of the charterers as regards employment and agency. Clause 11; the charterer was under an obligation to furnish the ship’s master from time to time with all requisite instructions and sailing directions. Clause 17- London arbitration under English law was to be the forum and method of the resolution of any dispute arising from the charterparty. Dick instructed The Globules’ master, Harry to carry out two voyages from Vancouver, in Canada to Japanese ports. If the shortest route had been employed, the voyages should only have taken about 17 days and 14 days. They actually took 23 days and 18 days. This was because Harry refused to take the shortest route. Harry said that he was a very experienced captain; he had taken the shortest route several times in the past but found it to be very dangerous because of the extreme weather conditions that pertain in the Pacific Ocean; these include typhoons and that on one occasion the damaged suffered by his ship was so extensive that she almost had to be scrapped. However, he confirmed that he had not checked the weather conditions with Ocean Routes or any other satellite based routing service.
© City, University of London 2019
2
The longer route resulted in the use of more fuel and an additional cost of about $89,800. Tom is refusing to compensate Dick for this loss he says that he was not obliged to take the shortest route and was entitled to reject orders from the charterer to take the shortest route. Harry was entitled to consider the safety of the vessel and the crew when plotting the navigation of the vessel. Advise Dick.
QUESTION 3 Mohammad asked Roda Shipping to ship a cargo of dates from Saudi Arabia to England. He is issued with a bill of lading by the shipmaster. The bill of lading names “Chetan” as the consignee and termed “straight bill of lading”. The bill of lading is expressed to be “governed by English law”. It also contained a clause stating that “the carrier shall not be liable for any damage, loss or delay caused to the cargo where the carrier had not been negligent or reckless”.
Unknown to the parties and the shipmaster, the ship’s computerized navigation system had a computer virus and caused the ship to collide with another vessel when leaving Jeddah in Saudi Arabia.
As a result, the vessel had to return to port for repairs. That caused a delay of 5 days.
During the rest of the voyage, the container was opened in course of necessary repairs. Unfortunately, it was not properly locked again so that when the cargo was being unloaded, the dates were damaged and some lost. The dates were packed into 200 boxes containing 20 bags each.
Advise Chetan.
Remember that
-cheating includes copying, stealing, appropriating or using another’s work
-plagiarism includes presenting work which has been copied or paraphrased from the work of another either without attribution or as if it were one’s own work.
Using legal sources responsibly It is acceptable to quote from a learned book or article, or a statute or law report, in your coursework. However, you must ensure you cite works clearly using the OSCOLA system.
The bulk of the coursework should be your own work and thoughts in any event. To refer to the assessment criteria for coursework, your work should:
-be based on your sound understanding and application of the relevant law
-set out your conclusions clearly and prominently
-explains the conclusions you have reached
-be based on your sound and practical analysis of the relevant law and practice, and the issues raised by the question
-be justified by your own sound reasoning
-demonstrate your critical analysis and evaluation of the sources used.
Merely quoting large extracts from other sources will not satisfy these criteria.
a. Identifies and focuses on the key issues and themes raised by the question
b. Uses the relevant law to answer the specific question asked
c. Does not refer to irrelevant material
d. Avoids inaccuracies of fact and law.
- UNDERSTANDING
a. Shows a deep understanding of relevant principles and key cases
b. Uses appropriate examples to illustrate points and justify arguments
c. Applies relevant authorities to the issues in a practical manner. - STRUCTURE and ORGANISATION
a. Deals with relevant issues in a logical order
b. Presents logical argument(s)
c. Avoids repetition
d. Shows good grammar and style
e. Has appropriate physical layout. - ANALYSIS and EVALUATION
a. Distinguishes between important and unimportant facts
b. Explains why a particular fact/issue/authority is important
c. Does not simply take a fact/issue/authority at face value (lacks analysis)
d. Does not simply state a fact/issue/authority (merely descriptive)
e. Weighs up different positions and reaches conclusions. - USE and ATTRIBUTION of appropriate material
a. Uses basic texts and module materials appropriately
b. Cites sources appropriately and precisely
c. Shows evidence of wider, independent, reading, going beyond basic texts and module materials.