2,051
edits
Changes
no edit summary
Parties’ Arguments
The Judge first set out the materials on which Carriers sought to rely – the Comité Maritime International (“CMI” – fn.1) commentary on the YAR 1994, which it drafted and promulgated, an industry circular (BIMCO) and insurer article (Gard), and legal practioner works (Lowndes & Rudolf: Law of General Average and the York-Antwerp Rules, 15th Editon Edition 2018, Voyage Charters, 4thEdition 4th Edition 2014, and General Average: Law and Practice, 3rd Edition 2017) – for the proposition that the words used in clause (3) of Congenbill 1994 form were understood in the relevant trade only to apply to amendments to YAR 1994 itself, so did not include new versions of YAR.
Carriers considered that, had the parties intended otherwise, they would have used Congenbill 2016 form or amended clause (3) of the Congenbill 1994 form to incorporate YAR 2016. As neither was done, Carriers contended that the parties had agreed YAR 1994.