Shortly after its passage, cargo owners determined that cargo could be handled more efficiently if placed on pallets , a process that results in numerous boxes or bags of cargo being consolidated on a single pallet. Some courts agreed. A foot 6. Later, shipowners began offering cargo owners the opportunity to ship their cargoes in large ocean shipping containers. The containers came in two sizes — 8 feet 2.

Author:Shakajar Goltigor
Language:English (Spanish)
Published (Last):10 June 2017
PDF File Size:6.89 Mb
ePub File Size:1.51 Mb
Price:Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]

Nonetheless, the courts have charted a map of reference points that an observer may use to create the boundaries of what constitutes a package and what does not; there is a general framework that courts apply when determining whether a particular item is a COGSA package. Generally, there are two schools of thought when determining whether a particular object is a COGSA package. However, items that are not completely concealed or enclosed may, or may not, qualify as packages.

Thus, the courts carry the burden of determining whether and when ocean containers qualify as COGSA packages. The Ninth Circuit, for example, takes a narrow view of the Fair Opportunity Doctrine it requires carriers to draft warnings in bills of lading in a manner that mirrors the text of COGSA.

In contrast, the Fifth Circuit merely looks to whether the carrier offered scaled shipping rates for higher declared values. As stated in Mobil Sales and Supply Corp. With respect to package limitation exceptions, the Fundamental Breach Doctrine bears close resemblance to the Unreasonable Deviation Doctrine.

In addition to the package limitation of Article 59, the Rotterdam Rules significantly weaken the package limitation exceptions discussed above. Article 61, for example, abolishes the Fair Opportunity Doctrine, the Unreasonable Deviation Doctrine, and the Fundamental Breach Doctrine, and except for a specified provision regarding stowage on deck in violation of an agreement, makes the package or weight limitation virtually unbreakable.

Even the Rotterdam Rules do not precisely define a package or unit, leaving to the courts the burden and authority to interpret what is enumerated in the bill of lading. This declaration, if embodied in the bill of lading, shall be prima facie evidence, but shall not be conclusive on the carrier.

Navigator - F. Vessel Sam Houston, 26 F. Far East Line, Inc. Universal Mar. Schoenbaum, Admiralty and Maritime law 5th ed. Tana, F. Mormaclynx, F. Lines, Inc. Nedlloyd Rotterdam, F. See also Peter Rosenbruch v. Isbrandtsen Lines, F. Trading, Inc. Eagle Trading Corp. Yang Ming, F. Hamburg Sud, F. Marjorie Lvkes, F. See also Edso Exporting LP v. Marine Transp. Motors Corp. Moore-McCormack Lines, Inc. See generally FMC Corp. McGee, 36 F. Tourcoing, F. Evergreen Lines, Metro.

Stevedore Co. The Second Circuit used the same test in a summary order, which does not have precedential effect. OOO "Garant-S" v. Empire United Lines Co.

Toko Kaiun Kaish, Ltd. President Lines, 32 F. See, e. Astramar, F. Supp , , AMC N. See Ferrostaal, Inc. The statute is not neutral as between carriers and shippers on this point; the burden is on the shipper to declare a greater value.

Park, U. Johns N. Shipping Corp. She accordingly became liable as for a deviation, cannot escape by reason of the relieving clauses inserted in the bill of lading for her benefit, and must account for the value at destination. Vessel Sea-Land Consumer, F. John Weyerhaeuser, F. Paul Travelers Ins. Floreana, 65 F.

The State Department has prepared a "ratification package," which as of May 18, was in the office of the Secretary of State. The Secretary of State will very soon send the package to the President. In accordance with the U. Constitution, the President must ask the Senate for its advice and consent, which must be given by a two-thirds vote 67 senators before the President may ratify a treaty. The Rotterdam Rules will go into force one year after the twentieth nation deposits its ratification with the United Nations.

So far, twenty-five nations, including the United States, have signed the Rotterdam Rules indicating their intent to ratify, and three nations, Congo, Spain, and Togo, have ratified the Rotterdam Rules. Many nations are waiting for the United States to ratify and will probably ratify shortly after the United States does. Mediterranean Shipping Co. July 16, , A.


Carriage of Goods by Sea Act

It contains sections as follows: 1. Application of Hague Rules as amended; 2. Contracting States, etc. Absolute warranty of seaworthiness not to be implied in contracts to which Rules apply; 4. Application of Act to British possessions, etc. Extension of application of Rules to carriage from ports in British possessions, etc. This means that UK coastal cargo shipped under bill of lading terms is covered by the Hague-Visby Rules, whereas Article X of the Hague-Visby Rules where they apply by agreement alone states that the Hague-Visby Rules apply only to a bill of lading covering carriage between ports in two different countries.


Carriage of Goods by Sea Act 1971



Tag: cogsa 1971


Related Articles