Changes

From DMC
Jump to: navigation, search

Priminds Shipping (HK) v Noble Chartering - The Tai Prize

6 bytes removed, 21:30, 15 January 2021
no edit summary
(v) Priminds was liable to Noble because the shippers, as Priminds’ agents (and hence Priminds) had impliedly warranted the accuracy of any statement as to condition contained in the Bill of Lading and/or had impliedly agreed to indemnify Noble against the consequences of the inaccuracy of any such statement on the basis that Priminds was liable for the consequences of the shippers’ acts.
Priminds appealed against the arbitral award to the High Court on the basis of the following three issues of law.
Issues 1. whether the statements in the draft Bill of Law Lading presented to the Vessel’s agents for signature on behalf of the Master amounted to a representation or warranty by the shippers and/or Priminds as to the apparent condition of the cargo observable prior to loading or whether they were an invitation to the Master to make a representation of fact in accordance with his own assessment of the apparent condition of the Appeal cargo;
12. whether the statements any statement in the draft Bill of Lading presented to the Vessel’s agents for signature on behalf of the Master amounted to a representation or warranty by the shippers andB/or Priminds L was inaccurate as to the apparent condition of the cargo observable prior to loading or whether they were an invitation to the Master to make a representation of fact in accordance with his own assessment of the apparent condition matter of the cargolaw;
2. whether any statement in the B/L was inaccurate as a matter of law; 3. was Priminds obliged to indemnify Noble against any consequences of that statement being inaccurate, whether pursuant to an implied indemnity arising by operation of law or an implied contractual warranty or term
'''Judgment'''
1. Following the rule of law in The David Agmashenebeli [2003] 1 Lloyds Rep 92 per Colman J at 103 RHC, the judge held that, when the charterer or shipper on his behalf tenders a bill of lading for signature by the Master that contains a statement as to apparent condition in the same or similar terms to the wording in the Bill of Lading in this case, the charterer or shipper is inviting the Master to make a representation of fact as to the apparent condition of the goods on shipment.
Following a more recent case, The Saga Explorer [2012] EWHC 3124; [2013] 1 Lloyds Rep 401 per Simon J, the judge held that the representation of fact made by the Master becomes the carrier’s evidence of the apparent condition of the goods when placed aboard the ship. This evidence can then be relied on by the consignee and all subsequent holders of the bill of lading as reflecting the reasonable judgment of a reasonably competent and observant master.
Under Article III Rule 3 of the Hague Rules, the information to be included within a bill of lading to which the Rules apply was “the leading marks necessary for the identification of the goods as the same” and “the number of packages or pieces, or quantity or weight” both of which, clearly stated “as furnished in writing by the shipper”. Critically, the rule goes on to provide that the bill should also set out “the apparent order and condition of the goods” but did not state that this information was to be “as furnished in writing by the shipper”. It was therefore the Master’s task to verify the condition of the goods before he signs the B/L.
The Arbitrator had found that the damage to the cargo existed prior to shipment but was not reasonably visible to the Master or any agent of Priminds. In these circumstances, the Judge found that the representation of fact by the Master as to the apparent condition of the cargo was not inaccurate.
2. The Arbitrator had found that the damage to the cargo existed prior to shipment but was not reasonably visible to the Master or any agent of Priminds. In these circumstances, the Judge found that the representation of fact by the Master as to the apparent condition of the cargo was not inaccurate. 3. The Judge noted that Article III Rule 5 of the Hague Rules imposed an express indemnity obligation on the shipper in respect of the information that he “furnishes in writing” but not in relation to statements regarding “the apparent order and condition of the goods”. This was a clear distinction and therefore, there was no room for the implication of an implied guarantee or warranty as a result of any inaccuracy of those statements.
'''Comment'''
Retrieved from ‘https://www.onlinedmc.co.uk/index.php?title=Special:MobileDiff/1652’

Navigation menu