The goods were damaged in transit and Monica brought suit. The carrier invoked liability to $500 pursuant to the COGSA liability limitation provision. Rationale Meaning of Package: Although there is no definition for package, the courts refer to the intent of the contracting parties, when it is clear and reasonable. case: the pallet is the relevant package. Standard Electrica case: The added a new dimension to the problem Leathers best “container revolution” and is thus more sensibly related to the unit in which the shipper packe d the “package” goods and described them than to a large metal object in which the carrier caused them to be So, a container rarely should be treated as a package. “contained”. Functional economic test was inconsistent with belts. Leather’s decision: when a bill of lading discloses on its face what is inside the container Mitsui and those contents may reasonably be considered COGSA packages, then the container is not the COGSA package. This case has been followed by other courts. Class notes: The general rule is that the container is not he package, normally look at how many packages are inside the container. The BOL normally states how many packages are inside the container. It is still open to the parties if the container is a package. The best description of how many packages there are is the BOL Choice of Forum and Law The usual rule is that in maritime cases, clauses in BOL that provide choice of law or forum will be enforced. Even in passenger ship contracts, choice of law or choice of forum are enforceable. Vimar Seguros y Reaseguros v The Sky Reefer The arbitration clause provided was in . The court enforced the arbitration clause. The argument against it, says that a provision in COGSA that you have a there’s can’t clause that will lessen the liability and this clause would do it. carrier’s The clause says dispute arising from this BOL shall be refered to arbitration in “any ” the clause also said the contract evidenced by or contained in this BOL shall be “ governed by the Japanese Law”. An issue in this case was that Japanese court might not apply the COGSA properly and that the costs would be higher. So, it even states that going to a court in . doesn’t you’re The court retains jurisdiction in this case. The cargo was going from to . Marine insurance
The goods were damaged in transit and Monica brought suit. The carrier invoked liability to $500 pursuant to the COGSA liability limitation provision. Rationale Meaning of Package: Although there is no definition for package, the courts refer to the intent of the contracting parties, when it is clear and reasonable. Standard Electrica case: the pallet is the relevant package. Leathers best case: The “container revolution” added a new dimension to the problem and “package” is thus more sensibly related to the unit in which the shipper packe d the goods and described them than to a large metal object in which the carrier caused them to be “contained”. So, a container rarely should be treated as a package. Functional economic test was inconsistent with Leather’s belts. Mitsui decision: when a bill of lading discloses on its face what is inside the container and those contents may reasonably be considered COGSA packages, then the container is not the COGSA package. This case has been followed by other courts. Class notes: The general rule is that the container is not he package, normally look at how many packages are inside the container. The BOL normally states how many packages are inside the container. It is still open to the parties if the container is a package. The best description of how many packages there are is the BOL Choice of Forum and Law The usual rule is that in maritime cases, clauses in BOL that provide choice of law or forum will be enforced. Even in passenger ship contracts, choice of law or choice of forum are enforceable. Vimar Seguros y Reaseguros v The Sky Reefer The arbitration clause provided was in . The court enforced the arbitration clause. The argument against it, says that there’s a provision in COGSA that you can’t have a clause that will lessen the carrier’s liability and this clause would do it. The clause says “any dispute arising from this BOL shall be refered to arbitration in ” the clause also said “ the contract evidenced by or contained in this BOL shall be governed by the Japanese Law”. An issue in this case was that Japanese court might not apply the COGSA properly and that the costs would be higher. So, it doesn’t even states that you’re going to a court in . The court retains jurisdiction in this case. The cargo was going from to . Marine insurance
Admiralty.docx