Section 3 of COGSA 92 lays down guidelines establishing when liabilities under a bill of lading, sea waybill or ship’s delivery order will be transferred to a party. In order to clearly explain the effects of the Carriage of Goods by Sea Act 1 and to make an attempt to consider whether or not the new. The tribunal’s decision on title to sue was made pursuant to the Carriage of Goods by Sea Act (COGSA 92). Sections 2 and 5 of COGSA.

Author: Faerisar Mikagul
Country: Pacific Islands
Language: English (Spanish)
Genre: Health and Food
Published (Last): 4 February 2008
Pages: 315
PDF File Size: 8.6 Mb
ePub File Size: 10.42 Mb
ISBN: 572-3-13619-640-3
Downloads: 48323
Price: Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]
Uploader: Mular

Article 61, for example, abolishes the Fair Opportunity Doctrine, the Unreasonable Deviation Doctrine, and the Fundamental Breach Doctrine, and except for a specified provision regarding stowage on deck in violation of an agreement, makes the package or weight limitation virtually unbreakable. Dependent on the legislation item being viewed this may include: So far, twenty-five nations, including the United States, have signed the Rotterdam Rules indicating their intent to ratify, and three nations, Congo, Spain, and Togo, have ratified the Rotterdam Rules.

Supp, AMC N. This was the central issue in “The Rafaela S” 1a case in which the House of Lords gave its judgment on the 16th February this year.

Even the Rotterdam Rules do not precisely define a package or unit, leaving to the courts the burden and authority to interpret dogsa is enumerated in the bill of lading. The main issue is that where an electronic bill of lading is developed the Act will cover it. Latest available Revised Original As enacted.

Straight Bills of Lading – Do The Hague-Visby Rules Apply?

It is unfortunately now unclear whether the rule survives in other cases. More from cogsw Firm. These rights can be exercised “to the same extent as they could have been exercised if they have been vested in the person for whose benefit they are exercised”. Moreover, contrary to the provision of the old Act and in order to avoid the liability of banks, the statute provides that the transfer of liabilities will be effective only if the person to whom these rights are transferred: What about the claims by the shipper?

However, the section provides that “the operation of that subsection shall be without prejudice to any rights which derive from a person’s having been an original party to the contract contained in, or evidenced by, a sea waybill and, in relation to a ship’s delivery order, shall be without prejudice to any rights deriving otherwise than from the previous operation of that subsection in relation to that order”.


With reference to section 2 2 a bank to whom a bill or lading is transferred or the goods are consigned only by way of security can now rely to the rights conferred by the new Act that applies even where the transfer of the bill of lading follows the delivery of the goods provided that the transfer has been made: Plain View Print Options.

The judgement of Lord Hobhouse of Woodborough, followed by unanimous decision of the House of Cogs, makes a clear point on this matter where it provides that: In the “Rafaela S” the House of Lords did not need to deal with differing treatment of a straight bill of lading under COGSA and and left open the question whether there should be delivery of cargo only against presentation of a straight bill of lading where the bill itself is silent as to whether or there should be presentation of the bill, albeit such cogwa probably are few and far between.

Section 2 1 of the Act expressly relates only to the “lawful holder” of the cogsq of lading and Section 5 2 provides that: The original version of the legislation as it stood when it was enacted or made. Section 2 1 provides that: Liabilities under shipping documents.

Nonetheless, Lord Bingham concluded that were it necessary for him to do so, he would hold that production of a straight bill of lading is a pre-condition of delivery, even where there 9 no express provision to that effect.

Marjorie LvkesF. More Resources Use this menu to access essential accompanying documents and information for this legislation item.

Events from this Firm. Before the Act, The Dunlop v Lambert 23 case allowed a shipper in some cases to sue the seller for the full cigsa of the damage on behalf of the buyer who had suffered the real cogss contrary to cogssa rule that someone who suffers no cotsa loss is entitled only to nominal damages for breach of contract.

The consequences which this would lead to are so monstrous, so manifestly unjust, that I should pause before I consented to adopt this construction of the act of parliament” Section 3 of the new Act, in partial accordance with the Act, states that the person in whom rights cogaa vested by virtue of section 2 shall “become subject to the same liabilities under that contract as if he had been a cogsq to that contract”.

The Second Circuit used the same test in a summary order, which does not have precedential effect. As noted above, a difficult case was where the property passed before the bill of lading was transferred because the property could not pass “by reason” of the transfer of the bill of lading. Revised legislation carried on this site may not be fully up to date. On the other hand, in The Aegean Sea 26Thomas J referred to the concept of good faith in a narrow means: Of the federal circuits, the Second, Third, Fourth, and Fifth Circuits generally take a narrow construction of the quasi-unreasonable deviation exception and limit its reach to unauthorized on-deck stowage of cargo.


Rights of suit are not vested in the cargo owner, who may be a different party altogether.

Butterworths, at Footnotes 1 Milan Nigeria Ltd v. Notwithstanding, the Act did not solve the problems and the first judicial criticism came in 6 whilst the courts started to search for some solution to the problems we will be cobsa. Is a straight bill of lading a “bill of lading or similar document of title” within the meaning of the Hague-Visby Rules Art.

The main deficiency of the Bills of Lading Act has been noted in the case of bulk shipments, which were not foreseen when the Act was born.

Unwrapping the COGSA Package Limitation: A Survey of How – GARD

Do you have a Question or Comment? Any comments on this article can be e-mailed to the Gard News Editorial Team. Abbatescianni Studio Legale e Tributario.

The problem was that under international standard contracts of sale the buyer accepts the risk of loss from the time of shipment. Furthermore the new Act applies, following section 2 1not only to bills of lading but also to waybills and ship’s delivery orders.

With respect to package limitation exceptions, the Fundamental Breach Doctrine bears close resemblance to the Unreasonable Deviation Doctrine. On the other hand the bill were indorsed to Dow Europe and the question was whether or not the buyer was still liable under section 3 1 of the Carriage of Goods by Sea Act.

Carriage of Goods By Sea Act 1992

The problem which arose in The Delfini with regards to the Act has been definitely solved. In those circumstances the majority inferred which they were entitled to do that the transfer of the bills to Churchgate was a result of the payment made under the contracts of sale.

However, some problems are still unsolved and, as seen cohsa the Berge Sisarsome of its terms can be regarded as potentially unfair.