An analysis of transport documents and electronic transport records under the Rotterdam rules

Many changes have been brought into uniform seaborne cargo regimes by the Rotterdam Rules. One important change is that the Rules have replaced the term “bill of lading” with “transport document”. This paper analyses transport documents under seaborne cargo regimes. Another change is the treatment of electronic transport records as equivalent to transport documents in Chapter 3 of the Rules. Namely, these electronic transport records are treated as the equivalent of transport documents. It should be noted that electronic transport records, as a newly-incorporated element in the uniform sea cargo regime, are not addressed in previous conventions. As electronic transport records are treated as the equivalent of transport documents, the discussion on “transport documents” in this paper also applies to electronic transport records. This paper demonstrates the Rotterdam Rules have much more expanded coverage than conventions prevailed previously. Accordingly, the necessity of such an extended scope of application and its impact on the wider ratification of such a convention of uniform rules will be examined

Bill of Lading as Collateral Security under Federal Laws

The desirability of the bill of lading as collateral security has been recognized in business transactions for many decades. The foregoing fact arises from the inherent nature of the financing of transactions of foreign or domestic trade

Admiralty Litigation In Perpetuum: The Continuing Saga of Package Litigation and Third World Delivery Problems

Certain admiralty cargo issues are litigated frequently, often in search of a magical test which will preclude all further litigation. Three such issues are package limitations, the burden of proving the condition and quantity of cargo stowed within containers, and the point at which the ocean carrier delivers cargo at discharge and thus completes its duties under the contract of carriage. Despite the frequency with which these issues have been litigated, significant disagreement remains among the circuit courts as to their proper resolution. This article will examine the current state of judicial uncertainty in these areas and the indications given by the courts as the positions most likely to be adopted in the future

Carrier Liability under the Rotterdam Rules

This is the author accepted manuscript. The final version is available from the publisher via the ISBN in this recordThis paper discusses the carrier liability regime arising from multimodal transport under the new Rotterdam Rules. Although not a panacea, nevertheless the legal regime provided by the Rotterdam Rules specifies in a more specific way the liability of the sea carrier. It is believed that if the Rotterdam Rules are ratified by the states constituting the “major players” in the maritime field, the Rotterdam Rules will resolve many uncertainties in the field of maritime transport, especially multimodal

Pravni problemi u slučaju predaje robe bez teretnice : Praksa nekih azijskih jurisdikcija

This article examines the problem related to the delivery of the goods without a bill of lading. It focuses mainly on the problems arising in the Far East, which are compared, in some cases, with similar problems in some Western common law and civil law jurisdictions. Before reviewing the court practice and examining various issues related to the delivery of the goods without a bill of lading, several general questions related to the legal background of this problem are examined. With respect to the practice of delivery of the goods without a bill of lading, various issues are examined, such as whether a carrier can deliver the goods to the owner of the goods without a bill of lading; what is the nature of the carrier\u27s liability for wrongful delivery: tort or contract ? Should the carrier deliver against single or a full set of bills of lading ? Is the ship\u27s agent liable for delivery without a bill of lading ? Should a carrier obey the charterer\u27s orders to deliver the goods without a bill of lading ? Can a carrier deliver the goods without production of a straight bill of lading ? Should a carrier agree to deliver the goods against the letter of indemnity, and how safe is to rely on such a document ? The main purpose of this article is to try to find an answer to the questions as to why an old problem is still causing so much confusion and how the problems arising in practice can be resolved.Ovaj se članak bavi ispitivanjem pravnih problema koji se javljaju u slučaju predaje tereta bez predočenja teretnice. Glavna je pažnja usmjerena na neka azijska prava, s poredbenim prikazom pristupa istim problemima u nekim od kontinentalnih i anglosaksonskih jurisdikcija na Zapadu. Prije analize sudske prakse, u uvodnom dijelu, članak se bavi nekim teorijskim pitanjima u odnosu na problem predaje tereta bez teretnice. Obrađeno je više pitanja: Može li prijevoznik predati teret vlasniku tereta koji nije u posjedu terretnice ? Koja je osnova odgovornosti prijevoznika za predaju tereta bez teretnice : ugovorna ili izvanugovorna ?Treba li prijevoznik prtedati teret imatelju jedne teretnice ili je potrebno predočiti sve primjerke teretnice ? Je li agent brodara odgovoran za predaju ako izvrši predaju tereta bez teretnice ? Treba li prijevoznik postupiti prema nalogu naručitelja prijevoza da preda teret bez teretnice ? Treba li prijevoznik zahtijevati predočenje teretnice na ime ? Može li prijevoznik predati teret u zamjenu za garanciju primatelja ? Cilj ovoga članka je pokušaj pronalaženja odgovora na pitanje zašto jedan tako stari problem, kao što je predaja tereta bez teretnice, još uvijek izaziva tolike probleme u praksi, te kako ti problemi mogu biti rješavani

Bills of Lading as Documents of Title — Chinese Law and Policy

In modern maritime commerce, the bill of lading is usually regarded as a document of title.This is also the case under Chinese law. However, unlike other jurisdictions such as the UK and the US, the exact effects of the bill of lading as a document of title have never been clarified in China due to the silence of Chinese law in this regard. In consequence of that, various explanations on the notion “bill of lading as document of title” have been developed.Unfortunately, none of them is fully compatible with the existing Chinese law and the reality of trade. To understand the notion “bill of lading as document of title” precisely, this article revisits English law and American law from which Chinese law borrows the notion and uncovers that the definition of the notion in national law may be influenced by the following factors: the legislative intent of the national law on the usage of the bill of lading, the freedom of contract in transfer of property rights in goods, and the domestic law on doctrine of good faith purchase. This article then analyses these factors in the context of Chinese law and policy,seeking to find a proper way to clarify the notion “bill of lading as document of title” and localise such a notion to suit Chinese legal and economic background

Straight Bills, a Comparative Study

This dissertation will be discussing the presentation requirement for straight bills in different jurisdictions, in an attempt to clarify interpretational differences and similarities. Starting with common law&semic United Kingdom's, Singapore's, Hong Kong's and the United States' legal interpretational views will be analysed and then compared with a civil law jurisdiction, represented by Swedish law. Furthermore, the different jurisdictions will also be compared with the newly drafted UNCITRAL Draft Convention. This dissertation will, among other things, come to the conclusion that common law jurisdictions interpret the presentation rule for straight bills differently. The United Kingdom's, arguably having a position in between the United States and Singapore/Hong Kong for the moment&semic view on this matter is far from resolved. Even if the House of Lords seem to favour a solution based on the path that Singapore and Hong Kong choose, many critics have in doctrine made it clear that case law is not clear enough and that the United States approach is better. Hence, the issue is so far not resolved