JUR5401/1401 – Maritime Law
 

Problem 1

The company Siddis, located in Stavanger (south-west coast of Norway), sold a large shipment of machine parts to the French company Innovative in Bordeaux. The shipment was packed by Siddis into two containers, each weighing 5.000 kg. Siddis, which according to the sale agreement should organize the transportation, contacted the GermanLine. GermanLine offered a few days later the following transportation setting:
- With GermanLine from Stavanger to Hamburg, from there to be reloaded to EuroLine, which departed by ship on September 5,  bringing the shipment to Bordeaux.
- Pre-payable freight for the distance Stavanger-Hamburg, freight payable at the destination for the distance Hamburg-Bordeaux.
- Conlinebill for the entire transit.
This proposition was accepted by Siddis.

After the goods were brought onboard “Nordsjøgutt” in Stavanger, which the GermanLine had time chartered, a bill of lading was issued for the distance Stavanger-Bordeaux, with a statement of reloading in Hamburg. Siddis paid for the freight between Stavanger-Hamburg with NOK 50.000, and was then given the bill of lading which was signed by the GermanLine “as agents for the carrier”.

In August, during the journey from Stavanger to Hamburg, the ship encountered some unusually bad weather for the season. This had not been notified before embarking from Stavanger. One of the two containers   -  which were both placed on deck - went over-board. The captain claimed the containers had been properly secured for sailing in August, while the maritime surveyor who Siddis consulted, questioned this statement. The value of the container, which had  not been informed to the GermanLine, was by today’s value in Hamburg NOK 10 millions and in Bordeaux NOK 11 millions.

The second container was discharged – undamaged - in Hamburg,  and went as planned with the EuroLine’s ship “Euro Ocean” with departure September 5. But when “Euro Ocean” called at Le Havre - which was one of the regular places of calls for the Line - the container was discharged by mistake. This was not discovered until “Euro Ocean” had left Le Havre. The container arrived in Bordeaux with the next ship from the Line three weeks later than it would have been, had it sailed with “Euro Ocean”. The late arrival resulted in a production loss for Innovative of NOK 300.000.
 
(1) Discuss to what extent Siddis, which had the law of sales risk of the travel, may hold the GermanLine and/or the shipping company of “Nordsjøgutt” and/or Euroline responsible for the loss of the container that went over-board.
(2) May Siddis claim some of the prepaid freight back?
(3) Discuss to what extent Innovative may claim compensation for their loss due to delay and if so - from whom? (Innovative`s loss concerning the lost container is not to be discussed.)
The questions are to be answered on the basis of Norwegian Law.

Problem II (all questions to be answered briefly)

Question 1:

What do we understand by channeling of liability? Are there any examples in the Maritime Code of such channeling?

Question 2:

What is  general average  and how is it regulated?

Question 3:

What is a maritime lien?

Question 4:

What are the characteristic features of a quantity contract? Does the Maritime Code contain provisions regarding such contracts?