Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

When Was the Last Time You Were Restrained by a Prince? Conservatism and the Development of Maritime Law

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Maritime Law in Motion

Part of the book series: WMU Studies in Maritime Affairs ((WMUSTUD,volume 8))

  • 1701 Accesses

Abstract

This chapter examines how some concepts and contractual terms used by maritime law tend to lag far behind what is actually going on in maritime practice. The stubborn persistence of the 1946 version of the New York Produce Exchange time charter form, provides just one example among many. Sometimes—often—international instruments of maritime law have been created with wholly admirable precision to meet modern commercial needs, but have moved far ahead of maritime practice, proving incapable of moving national laws or commercial usage along with them. Sometimes, familiar and widely-used legal terms continue to deal with issues that have long ceased to be of relevance in maritime practice. In short, the idea that maritime law moves smoothly in lockstep with the needs of maritime commerce is an illusion. Very often, maritime law either moves on its own, or it does not move at all. The examples in this chapter are widely disparate in character, but they have one thing in common: they are examples of maritime law at distant odds from maritime practice.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 149.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 199.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 199.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    Star Steamship Society v. Beogradska Plovidba (The Junior K) [1988] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 583.

  2. 2.

    Id. at 588 per Steyn J. The Baltic Exchange’s Baltic Code 2014 for brokers on the Exchange has printed at the bottom of every page “Our word our bond”, but it also says (much less prominently): “It is important to note that no fixture has been concluded until all ‘subjects’ have been lifted”: see p. 19.

  3. 3.

    Transfield Shipping Inc. v. Mercator Shipping Inc. [2009] 1 A.C. 61 (reported sub nom The Achilleas [2008] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 275).

  4. 4.

    Id. at 72, [29] per Lord Hope of Craighead, quoting the minority arbitrator’s reasons for dissenting from the original decision in favour of the shipowner.

  5. 5.

    Murray et al. (2012), p. 811.

  6. 6.

    CMR has been adopted by 55 countries, including both Belgium and the Netherlands: see United Nations Treaty Collection, https://treaties.un.org/pages/ViewDetails.aspx?src=TREATY&mtdsg_no=XI-B-11&chapter=11&clang=_en.

  7. 7.

    UNCTAD (2001), p. 8, para. 16.

  8. 8.

    Id.

  9. 9.

    Nasseri (1988), pp. 231, 235.

  10. 10.

    UNCTAD (2001), p. 8, para. 17.

  11. 11.

    See United Nations Treaty Collection, https://treaties.un.org/doc/Publication/MTDSG/Volume%20I/Chapter%20XI/XI-E-1.en.pdf.

  12. 12.

    Multimodal Convention 1980, Arts 18, 19.

  13. 13.

    U.N. Convention on Contracts for the International Carriage of Goods Wholly or Partly by Sea (2009).

  14. 14.

    Sturley (2009), p. 427.

  15. 15.

    Because the Convention does not apply to all international multimodal transportation, but only to multimodal transportation involving carriage by water, it has sometimes been dubbed a “wet multimodal” instrument: see, for example, Nikaki (2006).

  16. 16.

    Rotterdam Rules 2009, Art. 26.

  17. 17.

    UNCITRAL, Status: United Nations Convention on Contracts for the International Carriage of Goods Wholly or Partly by Sea, available at: http://www.uncitral.org/uncitral/en/uncitral_texts/transport_goods/rotterdam_status.html.

  18. 18.

    U.S. Constitution, art. II, § 2, cl. 2: “[The President] shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur…”.

  19. 19.

    The acronym FIATA comes from the French name of the association, Fédération Internationale des Associations de Transitaires et Assimilés.

  20. 20.

    UNCTAD/ICC Rules for Multimodal Transport Documents (ICC Publication No. 481, 1992).

  21. 21.

    FIATA FBL, cl. 7.

  22. 22.

    FIATA FBL, cls. 8.3, 8.6(b).

  23. 23.

    FIATA FBL, cl. 8.6(a).

  24. 24.

    Healy (1983), p. 521.

  25. 25.

    Id.

  26. 26.

    BIMCO (2016), p. 3.

  27. 27.

    NYPE 2015, cl. 44.

  28. 28.

    NYPE 2015, cl. 45.

  29. 29.

    NYPE 2015, cl. 51.

  30. 30.

    NYPE 2015, cl. 38.

  31. 31.

    Wilford et al. (1989).

  32. 32.

    Wilford et al. (2014).

  33. 33.

    Healy (1983).

  34. 34.

    Havelock v. Geddes (1809) 10 East. 555; 103 E.R. 886.

  35. 35.

    Card v. Hine, 39 F. 818 (D.S.C. 1889).

  36. 36.

    NYPE 2015, cl. 2(b), line 39.

  37. 37.

    NYPE 1946, cl. 8.

  38. 38.

    NYPE 2015, cl. 38.

  39. 39.

    The “slow steaming” clause in NYPE 2015 includes an obligation on the charterer to incorporate the clause into sub charters and contracts of carriage issued pursuant to the charter, and to indemnify the owner against any consequences of its failure to do so: see NYPE 2015, cl. 38(f).

  40. 40.

    See Sect. 5 below.

  41. 41.

    All five of the largest container lines have such a clause in their bills of lading. See, for example, cl. 23 of the Maersk Line bill of lading (available at https://terms.maerskline.com/carriage), which incorporates the BIMCO clause (see note 42) by reference; cl. 21 of the MSC bill of lading (available at https://www.msc.com/getattachment/a2c61e0a-90d9-4c80-89aa-686e3464e62a/636355601931487641); cl. 15 of the CMA CGM bill of lading (available at https://www.cma-cgm.com/static/eCommerce/Attachments/CMACGM-Terms-and-Conditions-2016-08.pdf); cl. 24 of the COSCO bill of lading (available at http://lines.coscoshipping.com/lines_resource/pdf/coscon_tidan_cn.pdf), which incorporates the BIMCO clause (see note 42) by reference; cl. 23 of the Hapag-Lloyd bill of lading (available at https://www.hapag-lloyd.com/content/dam/website/downloads/pdf/Hapag-Lloyd_Bill_of_Lading_Terms_and_Conditions.pdf) which incorporates the BIMCO clause (see note 42) by reference.

  42. 42.

    The clause is available from BIMCO’s website at: https://www.bimco.org/contracts-and-clauses/bimco-clauses. It also appears in BIMCO’s standard forms: see note 43 below.

  43. 43.

    See BIMCO’s Conlinebill 2016, cl. 13; Combinconbill 2016, cl. 24; Linewaybill 2016, cl. 24; Combiconwaybill 2016, cl. 24.

  44. 44.

    See Gencon 94, cl. 11; NYPE 2015, cl. 33(b).

  45. 45.

    See, for example, North of England Protecting and Indemnity Association Ltd, Recommended Clauses 2016-2017, p. 1 (available at http://www.nepia.com/media/410235/NORTH-Recommended-Clauses-2016-17-.PDF).

  46. 46.

    Institute Cargo Clauses (A), cl. 3.

  47. 47.

    International Convention for the Unification of Certain Rules of Law with Respect to Collisions 1910 (Brussels Collision Convention).

  48. 48.

    For example, the states and territories of Australia introduced proportionate liability for economic loss or property damage (but not personal injury) in the first decade of the twenty-first century: see Civil Law (Wrongs) Act 2002 (ACT) Ch 7A; Civil Liability Act 2002 (NSW) ss 34–39; Proportionate Liability Act 2005 (NT) Pt 2; Civil Liability Act 2003 (Qld) ss 28–33; Law Reform (Contributory Negligence and Apportionment of Liability) Act 2001 (SA) Pt 3; Civil Liability Act 2002 (Tas) Pt 9A; Wrongs Act 1958 (Vic) Pt IVAA; Civil Liability Act 2002 (WA) Pt 1F. In contrast, the U.K. still has a system of joint and several liability for property damage and economic loss: see Civil Liability (Contribution) Act 1978 (U.K.), s. 3.

  49. 49.

    The Milan (1861) Lush. 388; 167 E.R. 167; Owners of Cargo of S.S. Tongariro v. Owners of S.S. Drumlanrig (The Drumlanrig) [1911] A.C. 16. These pre-Convention cases allowed the cargo-owner to recover 50% of its loss from the non-carrying ship, equal division in all cases being the Admiralty rule before the Convention.

  50. 50.

    For example, BIMCO’s Explanatory Notes to the NYPE 2015 Time Charter state, in relation to the Both-to-Blame Collision Clause (cl. 33(b)): “This clause is of particular importance when the law of the United States may apply to apportioning liability for a collision between two ships where both ships have acted negligently to cause the casualty”: see BIMCO (2016), p. 31.

  51. 51.

    The Atlas, 93 U.S. (3 Otto) 302, 23 L.Ed. 863 (1876); The Chattahoochee, 173 U.S. 540; 19 S.Ct. 491; 43 L.Ed. 801 (1899); The New York, 175 U.S. 187; 20 S.Ct. 67; 44 L.Ed. 126 (1899); Allied Chemical Corp. v. Hess Tankship Co., 661 F.2d 1044 (5th Cir., 1981).

  52. 52.

    Carriage of Goods by Sea Act (COGSA), § 4(2)(a), Statutory Note to 46 U.S.C. § 30701.

  53. 53.

    Liability for a maritime collision is apportioned by degrees of fault in the United States: see U.S. v. Reliable Transfer Co., Inc., 421 U.S. 397, 1975 AMC 541 (1975).

  54. 54.

    343 U.S. 236; 72 S.Ct. 666; 96 L.Ed. 907 (1952). This case is known, but not reported, as The Esso Belgium.

  55. 55.

    See, for example, Allseas Maritime, S.A. v. M/V Mimosa, 574 F.Supp. 844, 853 (S.D.Tex. 1983); Alamo Chemical Transport Co. v. M/V Overseas Valdes, 469 F.Supp. 203, 215 (E.D.La. 1979); American Union Transport, Inc. v. U.S. 1976 AMC 1480 (N.D.Cal. 1976); In re Complaint of Murmansk Shipping Co, 2002 AMC 2495, 2498–2500 (E.D.La, 2002).

  56. 56.

    In re Seiriki Kisen Kaisha, 629 F.Supp. 1374 (S.D.N.Y. 1986) applying the Brussels Collision Convention to a collision between a Cayman Islands-flagged ship and a Japanese-flagged ship on the high seas); La Seguridad de Centroamerica S.A. v. MV Global Mariner, 2002 AMC 1999 (S.D.N.Y. 2002) (applying the Brussels Collision Convention to a collision between a U.K.-flagged ship and a Cyprus-flagged ship on the Orinoco River in Venezuela); MAN Ferrostaal, Inc. v. MV Vertigo, 447 F.Supp.2d 316, 2006 AMC 2187 (S.D.N.Y.) (applying Brussels Collision Convention to collision between Jamaican-flagged ship and Liberian-flagged ship in Danish waters because all relevant countries other than Liberia, including Denmark, were party to the Convention). See generally, Morris (2007), p. 132.

  57. 57.

    494 F.3d 40, 2007 AMC 1817 (2d Cir. 2007).

  58. 58.

    To the same effect, see The Miraflores and The Abadesa [1967] 1 A.C. 826.

  59. 59.

    See above, note 53.

  60. 60.

    Otal Investments, 494 F.3d at 62–63. For a comparison of the Convention-based and U.S. methods of allocation of responsibility, see Healy (2001), p. 993; Forbes and Knoll (2017), pp. 977, 986–989.

  61. 61.

    See, for example, cl. 20(b) of the Asbatankvoy tanker voyage charter, which provides that: “The carriage of cargo under this Charter Party and under all Bills of Lading issued for the cargo shall be subject to” US COGSA (among other things).

  62. 62.

    See also, for example, cl. 33(a) of NYPE 2015, which provides that US COGSA “shall be deemed to form part of this Charter Party and all Bills of Lading or waybills issued under this Charter Party.” Incorporating COGSA into a time charter is essentially meaningless, another example of the unthinking way in which shipping contracts adhere atavistically to established practices. Sensibly, the 1981 version of the NYPE form did not purport to incorporate COGSA into the charter itself—see Pritchett (1983), p. 69—but that feature of the form seems to have been dropped from later versions.

  63. 63.

    Courts in the U.S. have come to exactly this conclusion about the New Jason Clause, which provides that a shipowner may recover a general average contribution from cargo if it is guilty of fault that would be protected from liability “by statute or contract or otherwise”. The U.S. Supreme Court held in The Jason, 225 U.S. 32; 32 S.Ct. 560 (1912) that a contract for the carriage of goods by sea may validly stipulate that the shipowner is entitled to a general average contribution if it is relieved by statute of responsibility for the negligence of the master and crew that gave rise to the general average event. The “New Jason Clause” expanded “by statute” to “by statute or contract or otherwise” but it, too, has no effect if the “private carriage” contract in question incorporates COGSA by reference, because COGSA prevents the carrier from contracting out of liability for its own fault: see Gemini Navigation, Inc. v. Philipp Bros Division of Minerals & Chemicals Philipp Corp., 499 F.2d 745 (2d Cir. 1974); Louis Dreyfus Corp. v. 27,946 Long Tons of Corn, 830 F.2d 1321 (5th Cir. 1987).

  64. 64.

    See, e.g., NYPE 2015, cl. 33(b).

  65. 65.

    See Williams (2015) and Rainey Simon (2015).

  66. 66.

    See the commentary by Steamship Mutual, “Supplytime 05: BIMCO Finalises Its Revision of Supplytime 89” (2006), available at https://www.steamshipmutual.com/publications/Articles/Articles/Supplytime1205.asp.

  67. 67.

    Supplytime 2005, cl. 27.

  68. 68.

    BIMCO, Supplytime 2017 with explanatory notes (2018).

  69. 69.

    Comité Maritime International (2016), pp. 367–370.

  70. 70.

    For example, Merchant Shipping Act 1995 (U.K.), s. 187; Navigation Regulation 2013 (Austl.), r. 15; Marine Liability Act 2001 (Canada), ss. 16, 17. The legislation in New Zealand specifically provides that it applies to all ships, whether or not registered in New Zealand, if the New Zealand court has jurisdiction over the case: see Maritime Transport Act 1994 (N.Z.), s. 92.

  71. 71.

    See, for example, The Miraflores and the Abadesa [1967] 1 A.C. 826, where the House of Lords applied the then U.K. enactment of the 1910 Brussels Convention (Maritime Conventions Act 1911 (U.K.) s. 1) to a grounding involving two Panamanian-registered ships and one U.K.-registered ship in the River Scheldt, in Belgium. Panama is not party to the Convention, so the Convention would not have applied according to the terms of Art. 12, but it did because of the terms of the U.K. statute.

  72. 72.

    Merchant Shipping Act 1951 (S.Af.), s. 255.

  73. 73.

    Commercial Code (R.O.K.), Art. 879.

  74. 74.

    Pakistan Merchant Shipping Ordinance 2001 (Pak.), s. 419.

  75. 75.

    Bangladesh Merchant Shipping Ordinance 1983 (Bd.), s. 376.

  76. 76.

    Hudson and Harvey (2010), para 2.04.

  77. 77.

    See, for example, cl. 24(1) of the Maersk Line bill of lading; cl. 22 of the MSC bill of lading (“York-Antwerp Rules 1994 except Rule XXII”); cl. 14(2) of the CMA CGM bill of lading; cl. 23(1) of the COSCO bill of lading; cl. 22 of the Hapag-Lloyd bill of lading. Website references for these bills of lading are cited above, note 41.

  78. 78.

    NYPE 2015, cl. 25.

  79. 79.

    See BIMCO’s Conlinebill 2016, cl. 12; Combinconbill 2016, cl. 23; Linewaybill 2016, cl. 23; Combiconwaybill 2016, cl. 23.

  80. 80.

    Castle Insurance Co. Ltd v. Hong Kong Islands Shipping Co. Ltd [1984] A.C. 226 (P.C.) (reported sub nom The Potoi Chau [1983] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 376).

  81. 81.

    Limitation Act 1980 (U.K.), s. 5.

  82. 82.

    Goulandris Bros Ltd v. B. Goldman & Sons Ltd [1958] 1 Q.B. 74, 105–106 per Pearson J.; Orient Mid-East Lines Inc. v. Shipment of Rice on Board S.S. Orient Transporter, 496 F.2d 1032, 1042–1043, 1974 AMC 2593, 2606–2607 (5th Cir. 1974).

  83. 83.

    Nigel Rogers, director of Richards Hogg Lindley, quoted by Gard, “BIMCO standard general average absorption clause” (2003), available at http://www.gard.no/web/updates/content/53338/bimco-standard-general-average-absorption-clause.

  84. 84.

    The clause is available from BIMCO’s website at: https://www.bimco.org/contracts-and-clauses/bimco-clauses.

  85. 85.

    See Note, “Restraint of Princes”, 32 Harv. L. Rev. 839, 839 n.1 (1919), citing Balthazard Emerigon, Treatise on Insurances (1783, translated from the French by Samuel Meredith, Butterworth, 1850), p. 420, which in turn refers to the Ordonnance de la Marine, promulgated by Louis XIV in 1681.

  86. 86.

    Case 158 – Note per Lord Commissioner Hutchins (1690) 2 Vern. 176, 23 E.R. 716.

  87. 87.

    Hague/Hague-Visby Rules, Art. 4, r. 2(g).

  88. 88.

    For example, NYPE 1946, cl. 16.

  89. 89.

    For example, Shelltime 4, cl. 27(a). Shelltime 4 was issued in 1984 and revised in 2003.

  90. 90.

    NYPE 2015, cl. 21.

  91. 91.

    Institute Cargo Clauses (A)(2009), cl. 6.2.

  92. 92.

    American Institute Cargo Clauses 2004, cl. 6(A)(1).

  93. 93.

    Rotterdam Rules 2009, Art. 17(3)(d).

  94. 94.

    Union Shipping New Zealand Ltd v. Morgan (2002) 54 N.S.W.L.R. 690, 728, [98].

  95. 95.

    See, e.g., Chetrit et al. (2018), p. 56.

  96. 96.

    See, for example, Comité Maritime International (1990).

  97. 97.

    The U.S. Pomerene Act is a relatively rare exception. It gives the holder of a negotiable bill of lading a statutory right to demand possession of the goods from the carrier: see 49 U.S.C. § 80105(a)(2).

  98. 98.

    Sanders Bros v. Maclean & Co. (1883) 11 Q.B.D. 327 at 341, per Bowen L.J.

  99. 99.

    Lickbarrow v. Mason (1795) 3 T.R. 683; 101 E.R. 380.

  100. 100.

    Rotterdam Rules, Arts. 10(1)(a), 47(1)(a)(i).

References

  • BIMCO (2016) NYPE 2015: New York produce exchange form time charter with explanatory notes

    Google Scholar 

  • Chetrit N et al (2018) Not just for Illicit Trade in Contraband anymore: using Blockchain to solve a millennia-long problem with bills of lading. Virginia J Law Technol 22:56

    Google Scholar 

  • Comité Maritime International (1990) Rules for electronic bills of lading

    Google Scholar 

  • Comité Maritime International (2016) Status of the ratifications of and accessions to the Brussels International Maritime Law Conventions. CMI Yearbook 2016

    Google Scholar 

  • Forbes T, Knoll LB (2017) The fifty-year waypoint: collision, limitation, and salvage law in the United States. Tulane Law Rev 91:977

    Google Scholar 

  • Healy N (1983) Commentary on 1981 revision of the New York produce exchange form time charter. J Marit Law Commer 13:521

    Google Scholar 

  • Healy N (2001) The basis of apportionment of damages in both-to-blame collision cases. Loyola Law Rev 47:993

    Google Scholar 

  • Hudson NG, Harvey M (2010) The York–Antwerp rules, 3rd edn. Informa

    Google Scholar 

  • Morris F (2007) The Pennsylvania rule: no longer the rule? Tulane Marit Law J 32:132

    Google Scholar 

  • Murray C et al (2012) Schmitthoff’s law and practice of export trade, 12th edn. Sweet and Maxwell

    Google Scholar 

  • Nasseri K (1988) The multimodal convention. J Marit Law Commer 19:231

    Google Scholar 

  • Nikaki T (2006) Conflicting laws in ‘wet’ multimodal carriage of goods: the UNCITRAL draft convention on the carriage of goods wholly or partly by sea. J Marit Law Commer 37:52

    Google Scholar 

  • Pritchett R (1983) The New York produce exchange charterparty: the clause paramount and responsibility for cargo operations and seaworthiness. J Marit Law Commer 14:69

    Google Scholar 

  • Rainey Simon QC (2015) The construction of mutual indemnities and knock-for-knock clauses. In: Soyer B, Tettenborn A (eds) Offshore contracts and liabilities. Informa Law

    Google Scholar 

  • Rogers N (2003) BIMCO standard general average absorption clause. Available at http://www.gard.no/web/updates/content/53338/bimco-standard-general-average-absorption-clause

  • Sturley M (2009) Modernizing and reforming U.S. maritime law: the impact of the Rotterdam rules in the United States. Tex Int Law J 49:427

    Google Scholar 

  • UNCTAD (2001) Implementation of multimodal transport rules. UNCTAD/SDTE/TLB/2

    Google Scholar 

  • Wilford M, Coghlin T, Kimball D (1989) Time charters, 3rd edn. Lloyd’s of London Press

    Google Scholar 

  • Wilford M et al (2014) Time charters, 7th edn. Informa

    Google Scholar 

  • Williams RW (2015) Knock-for-knock clauses in offshore contracts: the fundamental principles. In: Soyer B, Tettenborn A (eds) Offshore contracts and liabilities. Informa Law

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Tulane University, New Orleans, LA, USA

    Martin Davies

Authors
  1. Martin Davies
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Martin Davies .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Faculty of Law, Dalian Maritime University, Dalian, China

    Proshanto K. Mukherjee

  2. Maritime Law and Policy, World Maritime University, Malmö, Sweden

    Maximo Q. Mejia Jr.

  3. Plymouth Business School, University of Plymouth, Plymouth, UK

    Jingjing Xu

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2020 Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Davies, M. (2020). When Was the Last Time You Were Restrained by a Prince? Conservatism and the Development of Maritime Law. In: Mukherjee, P.K., Mejia, M.Q., Xu, J. (eds) Maritime Law in Motion. WMU Studies in Maritime Affairs, vol 8. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-31749-2_9

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-31749-2_9

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-030-31748-5

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-030-31749-2

  • eBook Packages: Law and CriminologyLaw and Criminology (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation