Week 7 Contracts for the International Carriage of Goods by Sea pt 2 PRECLASS TASK 1 A Read Mo, paras 3 111 3 114 , and articles 4 1 and 4 2 of the MHVR (note that these articles are worded identically in the HVR), Must a carrier prove that it used 'due diligence' in ensuring seaworthiness before it is able to take advantage of the defence in arts 4 1 or immunities in art 4 2 Provide some examples of what you think might constitute a 'peril of the sea' under para (c) B Read Mo's short discussion of The Europa case in para 3 110 , Why is it important to determine the cause of the damage How does The Europa case make this clear C Read the summaries of the Bunga Seroja case and Mo para 3 111 , What was the claimant's (cargo owner) main argument in the Bunga Seroja case What defence did the carrier rely on Did the court find that the ship was seaworthy Did the court find that the carrier had carefully and properly loaded, stowed and carried the goods Can a carrier still rely on the peril of the sea defence if the 'peril' in question is foreseeable If a peril is foreseeable, what effect does this have on the standard of care required by the carrier to satisfy its obligations of seaworthiness and proper care under arts 3 1 and 3 2 D Read the case extracts from Chubu Asahi cotton spinning Co Ltd v The Ship 'Tenos' and Minnesota Mining Manufacturing (Australia) Pty Ltd v The Ship 'Novoaltisk' , 1 Summarise the facts of these two cases (a few sentences for each) 2 The application of the 'nautical fault defence' (NFD) is central in both of these two cases In one case the NFD was available to the carrier and in the other not Which is which What distinction did they draw between the crew member's activities in the two cases which led to a different application of NFD

The Answer is in the image, click to view ...

Answered step by step

Verified Expert Solution

Link Copied!

Question

1 Approved Answer

Posted on Jun 27, 2024

Week 7 - Contracts for the International Carriage of Goods by Sea pt 2 PRECLASS TASK 1 A. Read Mo, paras [3.111]-[3.114], and articles 4.1

Week 7 - Contracts for the International Carriage of Goods by Sea pt 2

PRECLASS TASK 1

A. Read Mo, paras [3.111]-[3.114], and articles 4.1 and 4.2 of the MHVR (note that these articles are worded identically in the HVR),

Must a carrier prove that it used 'due diligence' in ensuring seaworthiness before it is able to take advantage of the defence in arts 4.1 or immunities in art 4.2?
Provide some examples of what you think might constitute a 'peril of the sea' under para (c)

B. Read Mo's short discussion of The Europa case in para [3.110],

Why is it important to determine the cause of the damage?
How does The Europa case make this clear?

C. Read the summaries of the Bunga Seroja case and Mo para [3.111],

What was the claimant's (cargo owner) main argument in the Bunga Seroja case?
What defence did the carrier rely on?
Did the court find that the ship was seaworthy?
Did the court find that the carrier had carefully and properly loaded, stowed and carried the
goods?
Can a carrier still rely on the peril of the sea defence if the 'peril' in question is foreseeable?
If a peril is foreseeable, what effect does this have on the standard of care required by the carrier
to satisfy its obligations of seaworthiness and proper care under arts 3.1 and 3.2?

D. Read the case extracts from Chubu Asahi cotton spinning Co Ltd v The Ship 'Tenos' and Minnesota

Mining & Manufacturing (Australia) Pty Ltd v The Ship 'Novoaltisk' ,

1. Summarise the facts of these two cases (a few sentences for each)

2. The application of the 'nautical fault defence' (NFD) is central in both of these two cases. In one case the NFD was available to the carrier and in the other not. Which is which? What distinction did they draw between the crew member's activities in the two cases which led to a different application of NFD?