This website uses cookies to ensure you get the best experience on our website. Learn more

Law Notes Shipping and International Trade Notes

Parties Notes

Updated Parties Notes

Shipping and International Trade Notes

Shipping and International Trade

Approximately 359 pages

Shipping and International Trade Law notes fully updated for recent exams at Oxford. These notes cover all the major LLB aspects and so are perfect for anyone doing an LLB in the UK or a great supplement for those doing LLBs abroad, whether that be in Ireland, Canada, Hong Kong or Malaysia (University of London). These notes were formed directly from a reading of the cases and main texts and are vigorous, concise and very well written. Everything is conveniently split up by topic as you can se...

The following is a more accessible plain text extract of the PDF sample above, taken from our Shipping and International Trade Notes. Due to the challenges of extracting text from PDFs, it will have odd formatting:



  • CoC -> Contract of Carriage

  • HL -> House of Lords

  • CA -> Court of Appeal

  • BoL or B/L -> Bill of Lading

  • FOB -> Free on board

  • CIF -> Cost insurance freight

  • [ ] -> writings in square brackets are my own opinions/comments on cases and articles

  • LoC -> Letter of Credit

  • HVR -> Hague-Visby Rules


  • These cases seem to consider the question of: who can be sued?

    • The Rewia established the general rule, The Hector, The Starsin both departed from it

    • The Hector -> identity of carrier clause was TRUMPED by a typed statement stating that the carrier was the charterer

    • The Starsin -> terms which parties have chosen to include will be given more weight compared to pre-printed terms

  • Also, when can a third-party take the protection of a contract (specifically, Himalaya clauses aka exemptions from liability)

    • Midland Silicones introduced the rogue 4-step agency exception to the privity rule (essentially a separate contract that incorporates the terms of the original contract, including the Himalaya clause), and Eurymedon tried to explain how this separate contract arises (unilateral offer that either matures into a contract after performance or is accepted by performance)

  • IMPT to distinguish the different types of charterparties (so you can understand what’s going on in the cases)

    • Time charterparties -> the charterer hires the ship, the master and crew for a certain amount of time

      • Shipowner retains possession of the ship and thus holds the goods on bailment

      • Carver: Time charterparties are “contracts for the provision by the shipowner of services by means of the use of the ship, the master and crew being provided by the shipowner, who also retains possession of the ship”

    • Demise charterparties -> the charterer hires the ship but without its crew

      • Shipowner temporarily transfers possession of the ship

      • Carver: “Demise charterparties are simply contracts for the hire of the ship, the master and crew being normally provided by the charterer who therefore (through such employees) conducts the carriage operation.”

  • FOB -> Free on board (duty is to get the goods onto the ship)

    • Benjamin’s: :The f.o.b. contract has, in the words of Devlin J.,1 become “a flexible instrument”, so much so that no really satisfactory definition of such a contract is possible. The central idea is that the seller is bound at his expense to place the goods “free on board” a ship for transmission to the buyer from a port or range of ports specified in the contract

    • The “classic” f.o.b. contract was described in Wimble, Sons & Co v Rosenberg. Its essential features are that the seller must at his own expense put the goods on board a ship which has to be nominated or designated by the buyer. The seller is not bound to reserve shipping space in advance nor to bear any expense of shipment which arises after the goods have been put on board”

  • CIF -> Cost Insurance Freight (duty is to procure shipping and tender the documents to the buyer)

    • Benjamin’s: “A C.I.F. contract is an agreement to sell goods at an inclusive price covering the cost of the goods, insurance and the freight payable for the carriage of the goods to the destination specified in the contract.

    • The essential feature of such a contract is that a seller, having shipped, or bought afloat, goods in accordance with the contract, can (and must) fulfil his part of the bargain by tendering to the buyer the proper shipping documents: if he does this, he is not in breach even though the goods have been lost before such tender.

    • In the event of such loss the buyer must nevertheless pay the price on tender of the documents, and his remedies, if any, will be against the carrier or against the underwriter, but not against the seller on the contract of sale.”

  • **IMPT: CRPTA does not apply to contracts of carriage by sea, EXCEPT FOR EXEMPTION AND LIMITATION CLAUSES (see s6(5))

    • so it DOES apply to Himalaya clauses!

  • Both carrier and shipper are neutral terms

    • Shipper can be buyer/seller depends on type of contract and terms, etc

    • CoC is between carrier and shipper

  • Implied contracts

    • There can be an implied contract between the shipper/consignee and servant/contractor of the carrier incorporating the terms of the B/L (Scruttons, Eurymedon)

      • But NOTE: simpler to just use CRTPA

      • Another alternative: Art IVbis R2 HV, which applies to“servant or agent of the carrier (such servant or agent not being an independent contractor)”

      • Performance of an obligation already owed to someone else (e.g. stevedores unloading the goods) can constitute good consideration (Eurymedon)

      • In practice we usually go through (1) CRTPA, (2) Art 4bis R2, then (3) Eurymedon!

    • There can also be a Brandt v Liverpool implied contract between the carrier and subsequent holder of the B/L

      • But NOTE: in modern times, the holder of the B/L can just rely on s2(1) and s2(4) COGSA

      • Cannot use CRTPA (CRTPA only applies to charterparties wrt exclusions/limitations of liability)

      • The Brandt v Liverpool implied contract is largely irrelevant today, unless COGSA doesn’t apply because the wrong type of document is passed on

        • Only arose because of the property gap problem under the old 1855 Act!

        • Benjamin’s: For e.g., delivery may be taken by a buyer under a letter of indemnity, or under a delivery order other than a ship’s delivery order as defined by that Act, no other carriage document being transferred to him or identifying him as the person to whom delivery is to be made; goods may be sold after a bill of lading has become “spent” and the bill may then be transferred to, and delivery of the goods be claimed by, the buyer; the goods may be delivered to a buyer against a bill of lading which has not been indorsed, or properly indorsed, to him

      • In Aramis -> Court declined to imply a Brandt v Liverpool contract

        • 1) No consideration

          • Party didn’t agree to pay any outstanding consideration

        • 2) No offer and acceptance

          • No acceptance...

Buy the full version of these notes or essay plans and more in our Shipping and International Trade Notes.