1. Carriage of Goods by Sea Voyage Charters (2)
Dr Ioannis Glinavos

2. Types of Charterparties
Demise Charterparty
Voyage Charter
Time Charter

3. Seaworthiness (1)
“…where there is no agreement to the contrary, the shipowner is, by the nature of the contract, impliedly and necessarily held to warrant that the ship is good, and is in a condition to perform the voyage then about to be undertaken, or, in ordinary language, is seaworthy, that is, fit to meet and undergo the perils of the sea and other incidental risks to which she must of necessity be exposed in the course of the voyage….” (Field J in Kopitoff –v- Wilson [1876] 1 QBD 377

4. Seaworthiness (2)
“… the vessel must have that degree of fitness which an ordinary careful and prudent shipowner would require his vessel to have at the commencement of her voyage having regard to all the possible circumstances of it …” ( Channel J in McFadden –v- Blue Star Line [1905] 1 KB 697)

5. Seaworthiness (3) Incompetent or Insufficient Crew
The Hong Kong Fir [1962] 2 QB 26
“…It is not disputed, I think, that a ship may be rendered unseaworthy by the inefficiency of the master who commands her…There cannot be any difference in principle, I think, between disabling want of skill and disabling want of knowledge. Each equally renders the master unfit and unqualified to command and therefore makes the ship he commands unseaworthy…” (Lord Atkinson in Standard Oil Co of New York –v- Clan Line Steamers Ltd [1924] AC 100 )
Adamastos Shipping Co Ltd –v- Anglo Saxon Petroleum Co Ltd [1959] AC 133

6. Seaworthiness (4) Cargoworthiness
Maori King –v- Hughes [1895] 2 QB 550
Stanton –v- Richardson [1874] LR 9 CP 390

7. Seaworthiness (5) Bad stowage
The Thorsa [1916] P 257
“… The ship must be fit at loading to carry the subject of the particular contract. If she is so fit and the cargo when loaded does not make her unseaworthy, the fact that other cargo is so stowed as to endanger the contract cargo is bad stowage on a seaworthy ship, not stowage of the contract cargo on an unseaworthy ship” (Scrutton LJ in Elder Dempster & Co –v- Paterson Zochonis & Co [1924] AC 522)

8. Seaworthiness (6) Breach of the obligation
“…(The Judge must) look at the events which had occurred as a result of the breach at the time at which the charterers purported to rescind the charterparty and to decide whether the occurrence of those events deprived the charterers of substantially the whole benefit which it was the intention of the parties as expressed in the charterparty that the charterers should obtain from the further performance of their own contractual undertakings” (Lord Diplock in The Hong Kong Fir [1962] 2 QB 26
The Europa [1908] P 84

9. Despatch
Tindal CJ “… but if the deviation was so long and unreasonable that, in the ordinary course of mercantile concerns, it might be said to have put an end to the whole object the freighter had in chartering the ship, in that case the contract might be considered at an end …” (Tindal CJ in Freeman –v- Taylor [1831] 8 Bing 124)

10. Deviation (1)
“In the absence of express stipulations to the contrary, the owner of a vessel…impliedly undertakes to proceed in that ship by a usual and reasonable route without unjustifiable departure from that route and without unreasonable delay.” (Scrutton on Charterparties & Bills of Lading)

11. Deviation (2)
“… It is the duty of a ship, at any rate when sailing upon an ocean voyage from one port to another, to take the usual route between those two ports. If no evidence be given, that route is presumed to be the direct geographical route but it may be modified in many cases, for navigational or other reasons, and evidence may always be given to show what the usual route is, unless a specific route be prescribed by the charterparty or bill of lading…” (Lord Porter in Reardon Smith Line –v- Black Sea & Baltic Insurance [1939] AC 562

12. Deviation (3) Is deviation ever justified?
Scaramanga –v- Stamp [1880] 5 CPD 295
Kish –v- Taylor [1912] AC 604
Glynn –v- Margetson [1893] AC 351
Leduc –v- Ward [1888] QBD 475
Article IV, Rule 4 of the Hague-Visby Rules

13. Deviation (4) Effect of an unjustified deviation?
Joseph Thorley Ltd –v- Orchis Steamship Co Ltd [1907] 1 KB 660
Hain SS Co –v- Tate & Lyle [1936] 2 All ER 597
“… it may be preferable that (the deviation cases) should be considered as a body of authority sui generis with special rules derived from historical and commercial reasons… ( Lord Wilberforce in Photo Production –v- Securicor [1980] AC 827)
“… should now be assimilated into the ordinary law of contract …” ( Lloyd LJ in The Antares 1987] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 424

14. The charterer’s safe port obligation
“…a port will not be safe unless, in the relevant period of time, the particular ship can reach it, use it and return from it without, in the absence of some abnormal occurrence, being exposed to danger which cannot be avoided by good navigation and seamanship…” (Sellers LJ in The Eastern City [1958] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 127

15. Safe port
“…It is with the prospective safety of the port at the time when the vessel will be there….that the contractual promise is concerned and the contractual promise itself is given at the time when the charterer gives the order to the master or other agent of the shipowner to proceed to the …port…” (Lord Diplock in The Evia (No.2) [1982] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 307

16. Modern day Piracy

17. Thank you Check on Blackboard for additional content
You contact me on
Reading: Rogers, A. (2016) Cases and Materials on the Carriage of Goods by Sea, 4th Edition, Routledge, Chapter 3