Please read carefully the following legal case relating to a claim for a cargo damaged by theimproper functioning of a vessel's insulating chamber and answer ALL questions in this Section.

Fuji Harvest v Australasian Shipping Company Ltd [2013]

The Plaintiff claimed damages for negligence and breach of duty on the part of defendants in thecarriage of bananas by the vessel "Lotus" from Fuji to Australia. There was a bill of ladingrelating to this cargo issued by the Defendant. The largest portion of the cargo was placed in theinsulating chamber, for which a higher rate of freight was charged. The part of the cargo carriedoutside of the insulating chamber arrived in good condition, but that in the insulating chamberbecame so damaged that part of it had to be destroyed and part fetched very low prices.

The Plaintiff suffered from a loss on the shipment amounted to US$ 154,000, who alleged thatthe insulating machinery on this voyage was incapable of doing, and did not do, its workefficiently, and that the fruit was, in consequence, damaged. The Defendant said they did all thatit was their duty to do in respect of the shipment and that the loss was due to perils of the seaand, or in the alternative, to inherent vice in the bananas.

By Hague-Visby Rules Article III, there is, in every bill of lading, an implied warranty that theship shall be, at the beginning of the voyage, seaworthy in all respects; and that if the ship is soseaworthy, the owner shall not be liable for damage to the goods resulting from perils of the seaand inherent vice. "Seaworthiness" should not be limited to mere fitness to encounter sea perils,but would also include the fitness of the machinery controlling the insulating chamber.

In the statement of defense, the Defendant raised a point which must be dealt with before themerits of the case could be considered. They contended that the Plaintiff could not bring thisaction because the claim was not notified within 7 days of the arrival of the "Lotus" at the port ofdischarge, as required by clause 17 of the bill of lading. If this clause was applicable, the contention was good and the Plaintiff would be out of Court.

The Plaintiff contended that it was not applicable where the damage was due to theunseaworthiness of the ship. This led to the question, "What was the contract between theparties"? The contract, so far as it is expressed, is contained in the bill of lading. An examinationof the bill of lading showed that it contained no stipulation as to seaworthiness. The questionthen, was whether the condition as to the notice applied where the damage arose through abreach of the implied warranty of seaworthiness.

Assume the Court was satisfied with the proof that the fruit was shipped in good conditionand properly packed, but the insulating chamber was not in working order, what would beyour legal grounds, if you were the Judge, in ruling that the Defendant was liable due totheir breach of seaworthiness duty, even though the bill of lading being the contractbetween the Plaintiff and the Defendant did not contain any seaworthiness requirement?(15 marks)