En anglais (limitations de responsabilité de l'armateur)

Demander un document
arrow_back Document publié il y a 19 ans
thumb_up 0 thumb_down
folder_openEnregistrer file_downloadTélécharger content_copyCopier la référence
  • Documents en rapport
  • Extrait
    The ability of Ship owners to exclude or limit their liability at the expense of Cargo interests is unjust Edward Waite Limitation of Liability Is it needed any more and if so for what reasons Contents 1 Introduction 2 1 1 Rules Regulations Conventions 3 1 2 General Law 3 1 3 Marine Law 3 1 4 Two Fundamental Questions 4 2 How do ship owners limit their liability 4 2 1 Tonnage Limitation 5 2 2 Package Limitation 7 2 3 Tonnage Limitation Package Limitation 9 3 Why are ship owners able to limit their liability 9 3 1 Judicial Comments 9 3 2 Six Explanations for the rights of a ship owner 10 3 2 1 Historical Reasons 10 3 2 2 Level Playing Field 11 3 2 3 Unlimited liability equals uncoverable 12 3 2 4 Deep Pocket Argument 14 3 2 5 Limitation is not exclusive to ship owners 14 3 2 6 We’re all grown ups 15 4 Conclusion Is Limitation of Liability still needed 16 4 1 Final Word 17 Bibliography 18 1 Edward Waite Limitation of Liability Is it needed any more and if so for what reasons 1 Introduction A recent Court of Appeal case The Kapitan Petko Vovoida1 lead to an article in Lloyds List titled “Hague Rules clause ruling could cut 800 000 claim for cargo to £1 70”2 The background to the case was that the Bulgarian vessel Kapitan Petko Vovoida was carrying 26 excavators on deck in breach of contract from Korea to Turkey between September and November 2000 Eight of the excavators were lost overboard during a storm and the rest suffered minor damage The Hague rules which were incorporated into the contract of carriage by the bill of lading meant that the ship owner and the charterer could limit their liability to either 100 000 Turkish Lira 5p or alternatively £100 per lost or damaged excavator Either of which would be greatly below the true value of the cargo Few people would on the face of this result suggest that it was a just or fair result for cargo interests the cargo owners or receivers It certainly does not sit well with the principle of restitutio in integrum i e once th
expand_less