Os Claim Against VC for Outstanding Freight Coursework

Os Claim Against VC for Outstanding Freight - Coursework ExampleSecondly, it must(prenominal) be determined, if no breach of contract was found to have occurred, whether or not the contract was terminate once the get off sailed from Piraeus. The underlying determining factors in both instances are physical fitness on the business office of the transporting vessel (Costa Lotta) and/or negligence on the part of Costas captain and crew. Generally seaworthiness refers to the state of the get off and places upon the enthrall proprietor a duty to provide a seaworthy vessel.1 Since O owns the Costa, it can be assumed that the transmit itself is seaworthy in terms of structural soundness or fit for purpose2 otherwise the ship would not have chosen for the journey. The crews competence is relevant in determining the seaworthiness of the vessel. It was held in Wedderburn v Bell that whether a ships construction is sound or not is irrelevant if the ships crew is inept or lacks the skil ls requisite for navigating the ship for the duration of the chartered journey.3 In other words, the seaworthiness of a ship forget also depend on the competence of the crew. It was held in Standard Oil v kinship group Line that a ship may be rendered unseaworthy by the inefficiency of the master who commands her.4 establish on the facts of the case for discussion however, there is no evidence that the captain or his crew lacked the necessary skills to navigate the ship. There is also no evidence of negligence. The fact is, the Costa came across unusual stick out and unanticipated delays which ultimately resulted in the loss of freight. By all accounts the master acted promptly and responsibly. The main challenge is therefore whether or not the contract for the delivery of the freight was completed once the ship sailed from Piraeus. The leading case on the issue is Bank of Boston Connecticut v European Grain & exaltation Ltd (The Dominique). In The Dominique the ship owner ent ered into a charterparty with the defendant in which payment for freight was due later on the signing of the bills of lading. The bills of lading were signed and the ship was subsequently arrested and thus failed to complete the journey. It was held that the ship owner had a right to claim the freight once the bills of lading were signed. Thus the ship onwers right increase prior to the ships arrest and the chaterpartys termination. Therefore not only was the ship owner entitled to claim the freight, the chaterer was not entitled to offset wrongfulnesss arising out of the breach of a charterparty coition to the freight claim.5 The facts of The Dominique are entirely similar to the facts of the case for discussion. Payment for the freight was due once the ship sailed from Piraeus. Therefore Os claim predates the perils at sea and the subsequent salvage operations. In this regard, O can successfully pursue a claim against VC for the outstanding freight. The action may be commenced by filing an action is rem. An action is rem is an action not against a ship, although it impacts the ships owner.6 The ship in question is the Jolly Roger owned by VC and purportedly arriving in the UK, which is the only asset that VC will have in the UK. The jurisdiction for filing an action in rem is facilitated by Section 20(2) of the arbitrary romance Act 1981. In this regard, Section 20(2) of the 1981 Act provides that actions in rem may be chased in any of the two following circumstances (g)any claim for loss of or damage to goods carried in a ship (h)any claim arising out of any agreement relating to the carriage of goods in a ship or to the use or hire of a ship.7 In addition, the jurisdiction of the Admiralty Court may be invoked relative to an action in rem when (a) the claim arises in connection with a ship and (b) The person who would be liable on the claim in an action