CARRIAGE OF GOODS BY SEA Coursework Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 3750 words

turnout OF GOODS BY SEA - Coursework Example are founded on the application of the Carriage of Goods by Sea actuate 1971 and the Hague/Visby Rules 1968. Contracts for the carriage of goods by sea which are described by a bill of incubus are covered by the Carriage of Goods by Sea Act 1971 which gives effect to the Hague-Visby Rules 1968.1 The 1971 Act and by accessory the Hague/Visby Rules 1968a are only applicable to outwards bills of lading which essentially means bills of lading that are issued from a British port or a port in Northern Ireland so that the port of terminal is immaterial.2 Specifically phrase X of the Hague Visby Rules 1968 provide that The provisions of these Rules shall apply to every bill of lading relating to the carriage of goods between ports in two different States if (a) The bill of lading is issued in contracting State, or (b) The carriage is form a port in a contracting State...3 The applicability of the Hague/Visby Rules to the contractual price of the bill of lading between Bushey and Blanca is important in terms of establishing possible liability and claims. Pursuant to Article IV of the 1968 Rules, the carrier is only liable for loss or damage arising or resulting from unseaworthiness if such unseaworthiness is caused by want of due diligence on the part of the carrier to make the displace tight and to reassure that the ship is properly manned, equipped and supplied, before and at the start of the navigate.4 On the facts of the case it is not revealed whether or not the remove to the MV Costanzia was damage prior to the voyage or damaged at the stem of the voyage. As it turns out the facts merely reveal that the damaged hull was discovered at the beginning of the voyage and thus it must be assumed that the carrier (Bushey) performed due diligence in ensuring that the ship was seaworthy at the beginning of the voyage as they immediately contacted Hadley (the shipowner) who in turn dispatched ASS a club to which Hadl ey belonged to survey the damages. ASSs surveyor however, erroneously determined that the ship was seaworthy for the voyage to Canada after shipboard repairs, but would have to have more thorough repairs conducted once the ship arrived in Canada. Based on the surveyors erroneous findings, the ship set sail once again, but subsequently sank with the result that its commitment was lost. Assuming the hull was damaged prior to leaving the port at Southampton, the ship was not seaworthy rendering the carrier liable if the unseaworthiness is a result of the carriers own negligence.5 If the hull was damaged prior to leaving the port, it can be assumed that the carrier was negligent, and thus Article IV(2)(p) applies. Article IV(2)(p) provides that the ship owner and the carrier will only be exempt from latent defects not discoverable by due diligence.6 It can be argued that since the damage to the hull was discovered once the voyage began, it was not a latent defect that could not have b een discovered by due diligence. Based on the assumption that the damaged hull existed prior to the voyage and ultimately caused the damages and losses suffered by Blanca, some(prenominal) Bushey and Hadley as carrier and shipowner respectively are liable under Article IV(2)(p) of the Hague/Visby Rules, 1968. Even if the damages to the hull were not sustained until after the ship began its voyage, Bushey and/or Hadley will remain liable under the Hague/Visby R