Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • NLUO Respondent

    Uploaded by

    Sonu Mehtha
    3 views1 page
    1) The carrier was entitled to limit its liability to $500 per package under COGSA Section 4(5) because it offered the shipper a fair opportunity to declare a higher value for the cargo but the shipper failed to do so. 2) The bill of lading provided prima facie evidence that a fair opportunity was offered because it allowed the shipper to declare a higher value and stated the $500 liability limitation. 3) The shipper, a sophisticated party familiar with bill of lading terms, did not prove it was denied a fair opportunity just because the bill of lading was delivered after loading, and the parties had prior dealings where on-board bills of lading were required

    Original Description:

    Original Title

    NLUO-Respondent

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    1) The carrier was entitled to limit its liability to $500 per package under COGSA Section 4(5) because it offered the shipper a fair opportunity to declare a higher value for the cargo but the shipper failed to do so. 2) The bill of lading provided prima facie evidence that a fair opportunity was offered because it allowed the shipper to declare a higher value and stated the $500 liability limitation. 3) The shipper, a sophisticated party familiar with bill of lading terms, did not prove it was denied a fair opportunity just because the bill of lading was delivered after loading, and the parties had prior dealings where on-board bills of lading were required

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    3 views1 page

    NLUO Respondent

    Uploaded by

    Sonu Mehtha
    1) The carrier was entitled to limit its liability to $500 per package under COGSA Section 4(5) because it offered the shipper a fair opportunity to declare a higher value for the cargo but the shipper failed to do so. 2) The bill of lading provided prima facie evidence that a fair opportunity was offered because it allowed the shipper to declare a higher value and stated the $500 liability limitation. 3) The shipper, a sophisticated party familiar with bill of lading terms, did not prove it was denied a fair opportunity just because the bill of lading was delivered after loading, and the parties had prior dealings where on-board bills of lading were required

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    of 1

    Respondents

    Article 4(5) of the Convention (Section 1304(5) of US. COGSA).

    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS, Ninth Circuit, 21.111.1993 -

    Royal Insurance Co. v. Sea-Land Service Inc.

    LIMITATION OF LIABILITY - COGSA limitation of $500 per package - Fair

    opportunity for shipper to declare higher value to avoid COGSA liability

    limitation - Primafacie evidence of fair opportunity offered to shipper (yes) -

    Failure by shipper to prove that it had been denied fair opportunity - Carrier

    entitled to limit liability.

    In the case of a yacht shipped in a cradle and included within the bill

    of lading's definition of "package", the carrier was entitled to limit its liability

    to $500 under Section 4(5) of COGSA in circumstances where a sophisticated

    shipper, familiar with the contents of the bill of lading, was given a fair

    opportunity to declare a higher value and failed to do so.

    A fair opportunity to make such a declaration was prima facie

    offered to the shipper as the bill of lading on its face gave the shipper the

    opportunity to make such a declaration and also recited the $500 limitation:

    the shipper did not displace such prima facie evidence of fair opportunity

    simply by showing that the bill of lading was not delivered until the day

    after the cargo was loaded for to extend the notice requirement in such a

    manner would invalidate the liability provisions of any on-board bill of

    lading, even when, as in the case at bar, there had been prior dealings

    between the parties and the terms of purchase required that the bill of

    lading be issued on-board.

    You might also like