Hague Rules, Hague-Visby Rules and Hamburg Rules

(4) Absolute antitrust immunity for ocean common carriers engaging in any activities described in (1), (2), or (3), above.

Every business organization has a social responsibility in ensuring that the environment it operates in is protected. Many companies have identified that they have a major role to play in protecting the natural habitat and ensuring that business is not only about making profits. Some organizations are setting aside funds that are developed in the protection of the environment while other organizations are setting a tree-planting day as part of their annual calendar. Companies have legal and ethical responsibilities that guide the organization in making sure that the environment is taken care of. The natural resource depletion and the environmental pollution have led to conservation groups setting rules that govern the company in utilizing natural resources.

This paper examines the development and scope of accessory liability under the second limb of Barnes v Addy as it stands in both England and Australia. As to the law in England, the focus will be on the rearticulation of the principle of accessory liability under the second limb as stated in Royal Brunei Airlines Sdn Bhd v Tan. In particular, it will consider the extent to which the decision has reconciled inconsistencies in earlier authority and remedied those issues propounded to be inherent in the traditional formulation of the principle. At this stage, this traditional principle remains good law in Australia. However, as suggested in Farah Constructions Pty Ltd v Say-Dee Pty Ltd, there is potential for the

This article analyzes and evaluates the principle of universal jurisdiction and the difficulties in its implementation. There is still a number of obstacles legal and non legal to proper and better implementation even if this principle is well known. About the principles of universal jurisdiction can something original or new be discovered or asserted? Universal jurisdiction is one of the talked topics in today’s world. Concept of universal criminal jurisdiction is very complex. When we talk about universal jurisdiction sovereignty also comes to raise its voice.

Mutual assent and consideration go together so this paper will argue against them together. Mutual assent is the idea that all the parties in a contract know what they are contracting to and agree to it. As defined in Charles S. Knapp, Nathan M. Crystal, and Harry G. Prince’s Problems in

The rule carries the terms of the tendering contract of Contract A. The Court entails some of the norms whereas some are established and found in the

Lord Denning holds the opinion that “…it is a mistake to think that all contracts can be analyzed into the form of offer and acceptance…” He gives his support of the statement above and echoes these sentiments in the case of Butler v. Ex-Cell-O Corporation (England) Ltd (1979). He believes that the “…better way is to look at all the documents passing between the parties and glean from them or from the conduct of the

The United States Shipping Act of 1984 is a law with regulations regarding ocean shipping to and from the U.S.. It contains pro-competition as well as anti-competition. This bill was later replaced by the Shipping Act of 1998.

1. Kennedy, Dissent(even though the K does not require payment against documents, it is necessarily implied by the term CIF, because otherwise the S would give up the goods, while B would still be able to reject them at the port of delivery, or would have to hold the B/L until goods were accepted, in violation of the K. This view was taken upon appeal to H of Lords.

One of the foundations of arbitration is that awards rendered are final and not subject to appeal before the courts. In this respect, Article 5 of the UNCITRAL Model Law provides for minimal intervention, and says, “In matters governed by this Law, no court shall intervene except where so provided in this Law“. As a result, the grounds upon which a court may set aside an award or refuse to recognize and enforce the same are limited. Article 34 of the Model Law and Article V of the New York Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards provide the restrictive grounds for such relief.

Reefer box, as known as refrigerated container, is listed in the Hanjin’ potential products list. Since reefer boxes are limited and demand for it is escalated from EU to Asia, reefer boxes are promoted inbound in Asia to export boxes to Europe. As a result, Hanjin can maximize EQ-equipment turnover. Some ports in Europe, such as Felixtowe in Great Britain, have a surplus of reefer boxes, thus the company can adjust the rate higher in order to limit the trade into such area while surplus areas, such as Barcelona in Spain, are offered a reasonable low rate to give Asia-Europe service promotions. Afterwards, the company gets higher contribution margin derives from Europe-Asia trade. Another way Hanjin reinforces its core business globally is promoting “shipper owned container”, “SOC” for short, in the area where boxes are deficit to save on empty repositioning cost. In surplus areas, Hanjin tries to be flexible with its rates to clear out the boxes and send them to other areas with high demand. The rates can be adjusted from lower to higher accordingly. Hanjin Shipping, additionally, has a service diversification to Africa as NAF-North Africa-Asia, WAF-West Africa, EAF-East Africa, SAF-South Africa lines are added. Before cargos are

Following from this, it is logical to assume that Mr Pattenden had dealt with the reception and decision towards the valuation of claims while residing in Australia, as it would be extremely unrealistic for him to travel to Vanuatu each and every single time he received a claim that needed processing. When now compared to Malayan Shipping, Crown appears to possess much of the same indicative facts that had caught Malayan Shipping as a resident of Australia. Mr Sleigh had similarly made decisions relating to his business while in Australia and had drafted contracts that were then intended to be signed outside of Australia. This was seen as the essential test confirming both ‘carrying on business’ and ‘CM&C’ in Australia. It is therefore possible to suggest that should Crown be further tested in a higher court in the future, highlighting the case of Malayan Shipping and focusing more on CM&C could potentially alter the case outcome.

The Sales of Goods Act 1893 provides the definition of ‘condition’ and ‘warranty’. During the period between 1893 to 1962 both ‘condition’ and ‘warranty’ was generally accepted that they were the only two types of terms which assist in ‘identifying the breaches which entitled the injured party to terminate the contract. In the turning point of 1962, a new type of term-intermediate term brought about a whole new page into the Law of Contract. Hong Kong Fir Shipping Co. Ltd vs Kawasaki Kisen Kaisha Ltd is the key case which owns the credit for this discovery. In the case, the ship owner hired out the Hong Kong fir, ‘being in every way fitted for ordinary cargo service’. The ship was delivered on 13 February 1957, sailing

What are the requirement(s) found in the U.S. constitution governing the President’s ability to enter into treaties with other countries, i.e. international legal agreements?

Carlill v Carbonic Smoke Ball is instrumental in developing the law of unilateral offers. The case sets out the three