You are on page 1of 2

Gajanan Moreshwar Parelkar v.

Moreshwar Madan Mantri - Contract Act is not


exhaustive and common law principles are to be relied upon.
The Moorcock- buisiness efficacy test, also wharfinger has duty of reasonable care to
ensure wharf is safe for vessels to enter and lie.
BP Refineries v. Shire Hastings - business efficicacy test, officious bystander test
Sathya Jain v. Ahmed Rushdie.- business efficicacy test, officious bystander test
NYPE 46 the vessel shall be employed "between safe port and/or ports" (line 27).
The Shelltime 3, qualified safe port warranty and LLoyd;s form Safe port warranty
clause(not necessary fo compendium, although I would refer to it once to show there
is always a safe port warranty clause envisaged in almost all standard forms)
The Reborn - the lesser the specifications provided, the more the need to providde
implied SPW; also when the term safely has been deleted, it shows intention to not
incorporate SPW and SPW to be not implied.
APJ Priti- In case of no safe berth warranty entry and exit to a port is not covered,only
movement within port is covered.
Nautical Pilots Co. V. Ports Terminal Ltd., the water in front of the dock does not
constitute premises of wharf/dock
Ordhuna v. Zen-Noh upholding Atkins v. Fibers and stating the master is held
primarily responsible for ensuring the port is safe since he knows best about
navigation and the charterers know merely about the commercial aspects
The charterer is not liable for the accident if it has been been caused by the masters
negligence or failure to exercise good navigation and seamanship- The Evia No. 2.
Not inspecting berth is negligence of master- Venore v. Oswega
Charollette C- port owners have a liability to ensure that port is safe-
S 69 of Indian Contract Act.
Marine Insurance Act
Cities Services v Gulf refineries- express authorization of the master about safety.
Mayhew Food v Overseas Containers, Globe Motors v. TFW Lucas- Subeqeunt
signing of B/L by master without protest shwos that the variation is valid. And owners
are bound by the sign leduc v. ward.
Masters knowledge- Northern Pacific v Aam trading.

Ownres: Carloine Horn/ tropical veneer for asafe port warrranty covers safe entery
and exit
Evia No 2.- stric laibility of charterer to ensure safety
Kanjengunja- master has right to rely on the advice of charterer
Master need to show only ordinary care- Eastern city, HAstor v O brein.
Chain of causation not broken by masters neglignce, then owners are not laible
Occupiers liability- Sushil Ansal v. State, Moorcock
Port Authorities Fiji v. Sofe shipping limited- if advertiseed depth not maintained,
then warning to be issued.
Proposal- ambiguity and unceraitnity is htere, not valid proposal- scammel v. Ousten,
pipraich sugar mills.
Masters variation not valid if risk is higher than that undertaken by Cp- Atlantic Oil
v. british Petroleum
Master to hve knowledge about contents of cargo othersie no oral variation is
permisible- Micada v. texim