Casework

1. A ro ro carrier loaded cars in Japan, and the B/L stated that 5000 cars
(Toyota Corolla) were to be shipped to Singapore. Counting the cars
driven onto the vessel, the ships crew found that only 4980 cars had been
delivered by the shipper. The Master decided to clause the B/L subject to
the shortage. However, this was not accepted by the shipper, as he needed
a clean B/L for finance purposes. He suggested to the Master that he would
issue a Letter of Indemnity against a clean B/L. He also promised that the
cargo would not be sold during the voyage. Also, the shipper insinuated
that if the Master did not accept this, he might choose a different carrier
for his next shipment.

a) What would you advice the Master to do in this case?

b) What would be the possible consequences of either clausing the
B/L or not clausing the B/L?

2.

M/S Trym transported sugar from Shanghai to Ho Chi Minh in August 2006. The
sugar was to be used for chocolate production and was thus fine and of a high quality.
The sugar was packed by the shipper in Big Bags, a type of bag that was commonly
used for this type of transport. The shipment consisted of a total of 500 bags. Each
bag weighted 750 kilos. It was raining slightly at the port of loading, bit the Master
decided to carry on as the ship was already late according to schedule. He assumed
the big bags were solid enough to keep the rain out. A clean on board B/L was issued
when loading was completed. Upon arrival in Ho Chi Minh, it was noted that several
bags appeared wet. The bags were transported to the consignee`s terminal and opened.
It was noted that the sugar was lumpy and thus not fit for chocolate production. 31
bags were affected. Further 3 bags contained brown sugar instead of the white sugar
as indicated in the B/L.

The consignees notified the carrier and a joint survey was arranged. The survey
showed that 32 bags had sustained water damage and the loss was estimated at
110.000,- NOK. The consignee claimed compensation from the carrier. The carrier
denied liability and stated that the cause of the loss was insufficient packing of the
cargo. He claimed the big bags should have had a plastic lining, preventing water
from entering. He also claimed that the shipper had not informed him that the bags
could not be exposed to water. He also alleged that any claim should be subject to
American Law, as it was a Clause Paramount in the B/Lstating that American Law
should apply. The consignee claimed that the Norwegian Maritime Code should
apply. He also claimed that he was entitled to limit his liability.

Discuss and solve the claim according to applicable laws.