A DISCUSSION OF THE HISTORY AND DEVELOPMENT OF THE ARRIVED SHIP DOCTRINE

Year 2019, Volume: 4 Issue: 1, 111 - 122, 12.02.2019

Sinan Misili

https://doi.org/10.26809/joa.4.009

Abstract

There are three requirements for laytime to commence in common law. Firstly, the vessel must arrive at the agreed destination. Secondly, the vessel must be ready to load or discharge the cargo. Lastly, notice of readiness must be given to charterers or their agents. Under English Law, especially as a doctrine “arrived ship” is considered when only first requirement is satisfied. At loading and unloading, there is limited time interval called laytime in common law which is either fixed or customary. So charterer must complete its loading or unloading in these time limits. If there is a limited time it is important to determine the commencing point. In common law it is determined by “arrived ship doctrine”. This work will examine “the history and development of the arrived ship doctrine”. It is going to be focused on the cases in English Courts.

Keywords

Arrived Ship, Laytime, Notice of Readiness.

References

• COLINVAUX, R., (Reprinted in) 1995, Carver’s Carriage By Sea (13th edn), Sweet&Maxwell, London, 0-420-45110-2.
• COOKE J. et al., 2014, Voyage Charters (4th edn.), Informa Law, Oxon, 978-1-315-79502-7.
• DAVIES, D., 2006, Commencement of Laytime (4th edn.), Informa, London, 1-84311-530-1.
• GARNER, B.A., 2009, Black’s Law Dictionary (9th edn.), West, USA, 978-0-314-19949-2.
• GIRVIN, S., 2011, Carriage of Goods By Sea (2nd edn.), Oxford, 978-0-19-958991-3.
• HILL, C., 2003, Maritime Law (6thedn.), LLP, London, 1-84311-255-8.
• PACKARD,W.V., (Reprinted in) 1983, Laytime Calculating, Fairplay Publications,London, 0- 905045-09-2.
• SCHOFIELD, J., 2011, Laytime and Demurrage(6th. edn.), Informa,Oxon,978-1-84311-945-6.
• TIBERG, H., 1979, The Law of Demurrage (3rd edn.), Stevens&Sons.
• WILSON, J.F.,2010, Carriage of Goods by Sea (7th edn.), Pearson, Essex, 978-1-4082-1893-8.
• Agrimpex Hungarian Trading Company for Agricultural Products v. Sociedad Financiera de Bienes Raices, S.A. [1958] 2 Llyod’s Rep. 65.
• Agrimpex Hungarian Trading Company for Agricultural Products v. Sociedad Financiera de Bienes Raices, S.A. [1960] 1 Llyod’s Rep. 623.
• E.L. Oldendorff &CO. G.M.B.H v. Tradax Export S.A. [1972] 2 Llyod’s Rep 292.
• E.L. Oldendorff &CO. G.M.B.H v. Tradax Export S.A. [1973] 2 Llyod’s Rep 285.
• Federal Commerce and Navigation Co. Ltd. v. Tradax Export S.A. [1977] 1 Llyod’s Rep. 217
• Federal Commerce and Navigation Co. Ltd. v. Tradax Export S.A. [1977] 2 Llyod’s Rep. 301.
• Leonis Steamship Company, Limited v. Rank, Limited, [1908] 1 K.B. 499.
• Shipping Developments Corporation S.A. v. V/O Sojuzneftexport [1971] 1 Llyod’s Rep 506.
• URL-1 Voyage Charterparty Laytime Interpretation Rules 1993 (The Voylayrules 93). http://www.uio.no/studier/emner/jus/jus/JUR5401/h06/undervisningsmateriale/ voylayrules93.pdf (10.07.2018).