Relevant cases Sample Clauses

Relevant cases. 24 3.3.2.1 London Arbitration 16/84 (LMLN 128) 24 3.3.2.2 London Arbitration 17/84 (LMLN 128) 25 3.3.2.3 London Arbitration 5/00 (LMLN 539) 27
Sample 1
AutoNDA by SimpleDocs
Relevant cases. 3.2.2.1 The Holstencruiser [1992] 2 Xxxxx’x Rep. 378 The background of the case was that the plaintiff ran a container service and time chartered ships from many different owners for the running of the service. The time charters were always on the NYPE form, and incorporated by clause 39 the Inter-Club Agreement. During the trips there were problems with pilferage and short delivery from containers when the ships were at port. The issues at hand for decision concerned the scope of the Inter-Club agreement as incorporated into the time charters and what criteria had to be satisfied in order to make it applicable to any given cargo claim and the effect of the agreement once it had been decided that the agreement applied. For the Inter-Club Agreement to be applicable the claim must be a claim under a bill of lading and the claim must be settled on the basis of the responsibility under the bill of lading and not under any other 50 ICA cl.4 responsibility.51 Furthermore the bill of lading must be a bill of lading that can properly be issued under the time charter.52 Judge Xxxxxxxx had to construe the Inter-Club Agreement and regarding the scope of the ICA he pointed out that, for the ICA to apply the cargo must been carried under a bill of lading. Regarding what criteria the bill of lading must meet, he said that it must be a B/L which is properly issued under the time-charter party. Clause 8 of the NYPE form was amended to require the captain, if so requested, to sign bills of lading in conformity with Mate’s53 or Tally clerk’s54 receipts on charterer’s usual form for the trade in question. Some points need to be considered: The first is the significance and effect of the inclusion in clause 8 of the words “in conformity with Mate’s or Tally clerk’s receipts”. This restricts the authority to issue B/L on behalf of the owner’s. The charterer’s usual form is an owner’s bill of lading and therefore this restriction on the authority to issue bills of lading is relevant and has the effect of limiting what can be a conforming bill of lading for the purpose of clause 39 and the Inter-Club Agreement.55 Both types of receipts derive from traditional methods of cargo handling, but both relate to actual receipts of the relevant goods by a servant or authorised agent of the ship- owner on board the vessel. In either way the receipts will be one which acknowledges receipts on behalf of the ship of the actual goods specified in the bill of lading.56 No authority was given b...
Sample 1
Relevant cases. The question all cases deal with is whether the amended clause makes the cargo liability as between owners and charterers clear.
Sample 1
Relevant cases. 3.4.2.1 The Cargo Explorer94 (The High Court of South Africa, case no: A252/94) The plaintiff, Primegates Maritime Company, was the owner of the M.V. Sea Muse, which was chartered to Allied Maritime under a time charter party. The Sea Muse loaded rice in Hochimin City and unloaded the cargo at various ports in Africa. On three occasions in different ports, claims for short delivery occurred and the plaintiffs P&I Club put up security for the claims but they were not yet settled or paid. Claims for damages and short delivery of a cargo of rice were made by receivers against Primegates (the plaintiff), but had not yet been settled or compromised with the receivers. Primegates contended that it was entitled 94 Primegates Maritime Company Limited v. the bunker on board the m.v. Cargo Explorer. to be indemnified by Allied Maritime in respect of those claims under the ICA. The plaintiff meant that the charterer were responsible for the damage due to the provisions in the charter party, and because of the problems of getting payment from the charterer due to their location in Monrovia, Liberia, they arrested the bunkers on M.V. Cargo Explorer which was owned by the charterer. The charter party stated that all claims between the charterer and the owner should be settled in accordance with the ICA in the latest addition. According to the ICA the charterer were to pay 100 % alternatively 50% of the cargo claim and this was what the owner supported its arrest on but the respondent (charterer) meant that the ICA isn’t applicable due to lack of fulfilment of one of the provisos in the ICA, namely that the claim has to be “properly settled or compromised”95 before it can be apportioned in accordance of the ICA. Therefore the respondent Allied Maritime asked for the arrest to be set aside on the ground that the plaintiff Primegates had no claim against them until they had either settled or compromised the cargo claims against them. The clause in question in the ICA read inter alia: “It shall be a condition precedent to settlement under the Agreement that the cargo claim, including any legal costs incurred thereon, shall have been properly settled or compromised”96. The words in the clause are ambiguous according to the Judge of the case and regard must be taken to the general purpose of the ICA according to him.97 The purpose of the ICA is discussed in detail by Xxxx Xxxxxxx Xxxx in the Strathnewton case.98 One of the main purposes is that “there will be a rough and read...
Sample 1
Relevant cases. 3.5.2.1 The Strathnewton [1983] 1 Xxxxx’x Rep.296 The issue in this case was whether the one-year time limit under Article III, rule 6, of the Hague Rules Applied where the charterparty also incorporated the ICA. The charter was on the NYPE form and incorporated the Hague Rules by virtue of the USA clause Paramount. Clause 55 of the charter provided that the cargo claims under the charterparty were to be settled between owners and charterers under the ICA. Cargo was loaded on board the vessel at a number of ports in the United States, in April, 1975, for carriage to ports in the Persian Gulf. After the vessel had discharged her cargo, numerous claims were made by cargo receivers under the bills of lading. The charterers settled 72 claims in 114 The Hamburg Rules, Article 20. 115 Hague/Hague-Visby Rules, Article III, Rule 6. respect of loss and damage, and then claimed recovery against the owner for either 100 % of 50 % of their expenses under the ICA. The charterers failed to bring any suit against the owners for settlement of any cargo claims pursuant to clause 55 within one year of the delivery and the owners alleged that the charterers' claims were time barred by Art III, rule 6 of the Hague Rules. The charterers contended that the Inter-Club Agreement governed the situation, and that the ICA was not affected by the one year time bar and its own two year time bar should be operational. Lord Justice Xxxx stated that “the Inter-Club Agreement had the effect of cutting across the balance of claims and defences under the Hague Rules by means of a rough and ready apportionment of financial liability as between owners and charterers”116 and if the question was asked what connection the parties could have intended between a settlement under the Inter-Club Agreement pursuant to clause 55 and the Hague Rules in relation to such settlement the answer must be none.117 The functions of the ICA cuts right across any allocation of functions and responsibilities based on the Hague Rules118 and there was no justification for the application of the time bar in Art. III, rule 6, of the Hague Rules.119 The conclusion from this case is that the ICA is a self-contained code which operates independently from other charter terms, including the Paramount Clause and that (1) the Inter-Club Agreement has the effect of cutting across the balance of claims and defences in the Hague Rules by a rough and ready apportionment of financial liability as between Owners and Charterers (2)...
Sample 1

Related to Relevant cases

  • Court Cases Any employee who is duly subpoenaed as a witness in any case in court shall be entitled to leave with pay for that purpose provided that the employee is not a party in the case, and provided that the case is not the result of litigation undertaken by the employee or the Union against the District. In cases where the Board is a party in the litigation, the employee shall be entitled to pay while attending as a witness at the request of the Board or as a co-defendant in the case.

  • Use Cases Subscription Services are provided for Software only when used for its supported purpose (“Use Case”). The Use Case determines which Subscription is required and what fees are charged. If you use or deploy the Software in a manner contrary to a supported Use Case, you are responsible for purchasing the appropriate Subscription(s) to cover such usage. For example, if you are using a Red Hat Enterprise Linux Desktop Subscription as a server, you are obligated to purchase a Red Hat Enterprise Linux Server Subscription.

  • DISCHARGE CASES 10.01 In the event of an Employee who has attained seniority being discharged from employment, and the Employee feeling that an injustice has been done, the case may be taken up as a grievance.

  • Final Approval Hearing “Final Approval Hearing” shall mean the hearing at which the Court will consider and finally decide whether to enter the Final Judgment.

  • Complaint Stage It is the mutual desire of the Parties that the complaints of employees shall be adjusted as quickly as possible. An employee who has a complaint must bring that complaint to the attention of the immediate Manager within five (5) working days of when the employee became or ought reasonably to have become aware of the occurrence that gave rise to the complaint. It is understood that no employee has a grievance until the immediate Manager has been given an opportunity to adjust the complaint and verbally reply, which shall be a maximum of three (3) working days from the presentation of the complaint.

  • Special Cases Value-Based Programs- BlueCard Program BCBSRI has included a factor for bulk distributions from Host Blues in GROUP’s monthly premium for Value- Based Programs when applicable under this Agreement. Additional information is available upon request. If BCBSRI has entered into a Negotiated Arrangement with a Host Blue to provide Value-Based Programs to Group’s Enrolled Members, BCBSRI will follow the same procedures for Value-Based Programs as noted above for the BlueCard Program.

  • Review Stages The Project Architect shall submit documents to the Owner for review at completion of the Schematic Design Phase, Design Development Phase and at the following stages of completion of the Construction Documents Phase as follows: 50%, 75%, 100%

  • Usual case If the Issuer is an emerging issuer (as defined in section 3.3 of the Policy) and you have not sold any escrow securities in a permitted secondary offering, your escrow securities will be released as follows: On , 2 , the date the Issuer’s securities are listed on a Canadian exchange (the listing date) 1/10 of your escrow securities 6 months after the listing date 1/6 of your remaining escrow securities 12 months after the listing date 1/5 of your remaining escrow securities 18 months after the listing date 1/4 of your remaining escrow securities 24 months after the listing date 1/3 of your remaining escrow securities 30 months after the listing date 1/2 of your remaining escrow securities 36 months after the listing date your remaining escrow securities *In the simplest case, where there are no changes to the escrow securities initially deposited and no additional escrow securities, the release schedule outlined above results in the escrow securities being released in equal tranches of 15% after completion of the release on the listing date.

  • Equipment Procurement If responsibility for construction of the Connecting Transmission Owner’s Attachment Facilities or System Upgrade Facilities or System Deliverability Upgrades is to be borne by the Connecting Transmission Owner, then the Connecting Transmission Owner shall commence design of the Connecting Transmission Owner’s Attachment Facilities or System Upgrade Facilities or System Deliverability Upgrades and procure necessary equipment as soon as practicable after all of the following conditions are satisfied, unless the Developer and Connecting Transmission Owner otherwise agree in writing:

  • Name Collision Occurrence Management 6.1. No-­‐Activation Period. Registry Operator shall not activate any names in the DNS zone for the Registry TLD (except for "NIC") until at least 120 calendar days after the effective date of this agreement. Registry Operator may allocate names (subject to subsection 6.2 below) during this period only if Registry Operator causes registrants to be clearly informed of the inability to activate names until the No-­‐Activation Period ends.

Time is Money Join Law Insider Premium to draft better contracts faster.