1 Alexander Rutkovskiy – Maritime Law, SAMK, Rauma – 17.09.

2010

The chartered a vessel The SELLER sub-charted the vessel

“Susanna” for a fixed period of time contracting with the a
manned, equipped. The VOYAGE CHARTER.
undertakes to indemnify the
against liabilities arising from bills of The obliges to carry out a
lading. voyage from to
carrying 3000 bags of cement.

The bill of lading (on board) number 1

and 3 had no further remarks,
whereas the bill of lading number 2
had the following remarks. Bill of
lading 2: "5 bags torn".

The bills of lading contained the following words: “weight, measure, marks, quality, contents and value
unknown”. It does not clear whether the bags were weighed or not. If yes, did the carrier check the
information in the bill of lading (SS 296, 298 MC). Otherwise, there were no such an information
given, bills of lading were still become the documents (S297 MC).

The bills of lading were signed correctly by the representative of the carrier. (S 296 MC last
paragraph).
 2 Alexander Rutkovskiy – Maritime Law, SAMK, Rauma – 17.09.2010

Ultimately, the received 1000 bags of the wrong content

that could be only visible for an expert.

Out of the 1000 bags, 5 bags were delivered empty. It was clear
that the bags had been delivered empty by the sender, but this has
been overseen by the master when he inspected the cargo.

The cement in 500 bags was totally destroyed because of water.

The reason for this was that they got wet after the hatches to the
holds had been opened under the voyage from Copenhagen to
Tromso. This happened when one of the members of the crew
tried to push the light switch to one of the lanterns, but by a
mistake pushed the switch which automatically opened the
hatches to the hold.

This is still a question of reservations Obviously, 500 bags were totally

in the bills of lading. Did the carrier destroyed due to the negligence of
check the content and weight of the the carrier’s servants (MC S275). But
bags? Conceivably, not. See MC S298. on the other hand, the case could be
The carrier should made reservations judged as a fault in the management
of his inability to check or measure. He of the ship (MC S276 1st paragraph).
actually did. “Weight, content
unknown”… and “5 bags torn”. Thus, Ultimately, it depends upon the
in my judge, I have no objections carrier’s burden of proof that can
against the carrier on these cases. certify that this fault gained a risk for
This is a seller’s liability. the ship.
3 Alexander Rutkovskiy – Maritime Law, SAMK, Rauma – 17.09.2010

Finally, I deem that the can claim the

compensation from both the (1000 bags
defected and 5 bags empty) and the (500
damaged), but the can EXEMPT liability
unless the fault will not be judged as a fault in the
management of the ship. The of the ship is
indemnified against liability by (charterer).