Discussion On Non-cargo Claims Case Study Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 1500 words

Discussion On Non-cargo Claims - Case Study ExampleLoading and unloading of cargoes in piers must be fast and efficient. Parties who cause the check pace of the turn-over of those goods do not contribute to the smooth movement of harbor activities and must be penalized. Imposing the sanctions will be an incentive for shippers, consigners, and other parties to take hold use of port facilities and equipment with the needed efficiency especi onlyy within the context of global modernization. Cargo owners are therefore charged with the duty to see the restless and orderly loading and unloading of their merchandise and are liable to pay demurrage for any delay in that connection. The payment of such demurrage may not be imposed only in cases of fortuitous or unforeseen events and force majeure or in instances where the guilty party is the mail carrier which includes its ship captain or master. (Becerra, Robert J. THE DEMURRAGE DILEMMA. December 24, 2007. ShippingDigest. internet). In t he case at bar, the guilty party is the master of Flying Dustman and his accountability to compensate for the damage is solidary with the owner of the ship. Horatio has thus zilch to do with the demurrage. It must be importantly noted that the contract between O and Horatio is one of voyage charter where the legal obligations are the burden of the carrier or the shipowner. These accountabilities cover the men and crew of the vessel including the master or the captain. (Compare and contrast the duties, responsibilities, and liabilities of the charterer towards the shipowner under both time and voyage charter parties. LAW ESSAYS UK. the lawfulness essay website. internet) The execution of the LOF with SCOPIC appurtenant to the Flying Dustman relating to both salvage contractors Pugwash and Saviour does not have any bearing on the possible list because the vessel to be salvaged, Flying Dustman, or O, its owner, evidently failed to provide the initial security required by No. 4 of th e SCOPIC CLAUSE of SCOPIC 2007 within two working or office days from the time that the said SCOPIC CLAUSE was invoked. (SCOPIC CLAUSE. SCOPIC 2007. internet) Under this set of facts, Pugwash and Saviour, may opt or choose not to agree the provisions of the said SCOPIC CLAUSE in its totality and may instead go back to the provisions of any subsisting contract in conjunction with word 14 of the International Convention on Salvage, 1989 (also herein referred to as Convention for brevity) which defines, delineates and enumerates the terms of a special compensation available to salvors or salvage contractors. (Article 14. limited compensation. Chapter III RIGHTS OF SALVORS. International Convention on Salvage, 1989. Admiralty and Maritime Law Guide. International Conventions. internet) The rights of the salvors are clearly outlined in the above-cited Convention. At this juncture, it has to be mentioned that the parties are all citizens or subjects of states parties which are likewis e members of the International Maritime Organization. The latter enacted the Convention. The states parties involved are the United States from where the cargoes came and the United Kingdom because of its territory Monserrat where the goods are to be delivered.