How is reversible laytime calculation different from non-reversible? Reversible laytime can be agreed between loading and/or discharging ports, and it helps the Charterers to save the time at a second port in lieu of the time lost at a first port.
Upon tendering the notice of readiness (N.O.R.) at the first port, the laytime is commenced after the agreed turn time at the first port only, same way as if the laytime was non-reversible. However, sometimes, it is mistakenly considered that the turn time is true for the second port and etc. In fact, not. At the second port, the laytime starts to count immediately upon the vessel reaches e.g. port anchorage (for port charter parties). It is considered that the Charterers should be prepared in all respect to berth the vessel immediately upon arrival and no turn is allowable. Of course, the passage from the anchorage to the berth is considered as the part of the sea voyage and should be excluded from laytime calculations.
As we have previously mentioned, you can always request for our assistance for clarifications with laytime calculations and the final despatch -demurrage settlement, in case you feel you got stuck or just overwhelmed with some other work to do, we can also do the calculus for you. It would be just wonderful if you could also remit a small-scale remuneration to our PayPal account. Just in case, please contact me at : maritimedomain@yahoo.com, thanks beforehand and best regards, maris
Thursday 10 December 2009
Tuesday 24 November 2009
Piracy clauses for Charterparties
If someone is not yet fully aware, BIMCO has recently published three new piracy clauses. The first one is a further revision of the Piracy Clause for Time Charter parties, initially issued in March of 2009. The other two are newly developed piracy clauses, for single voyage Charter Parties, and for consecutive voyage Charterparties and contracts of affreightment (COAs). For short term fixtures, the clause leaves the risks and costs with the owners, while for the longer term COAs and consecutive voyages, the risks and costs are shared between the owners and the charterers.
Thursday 19 November 2009
China : forthcoming requirement to contract with an approved local clean up contractor
Further to our discussion of the new chinese marine pollution regulations, we have to mention the requirement to contract with an approved local cleanup contractor.
The regulations will require the operators (the term "Operators" is not yet defined in the regulations ) to conclude the polution cleanup contract with an approved by MSA (the PRC's Marine Safety Agency) polution response company before calling any PRC port.
For the time being, it is understood that the mentioned clean up contractors will bear responsibility for carrying out clean up operations in case of an incident under the supervision of MSA. There will be more than one contractor in every chinese port.
The contractors have to be approved by MSA as well as the kind of response contracts that will be concluded between the operators and the contractors.
It is known that MSA will try to complete approval of applications of responders within 30 working days, however this may result in a very short period of time within which operators will be able to conclude the contracts before 1 March 2010. An extension may be given, but, since such extension is not forthcomming, every effort should be given to ensure compliance by 1 March 2010.
A breach of regulations may brings fines amounting from RMB 10,000 to 300,000 depending on the breach.
The regulations will require the operators (the term "Operators" is not yet defined in the regulations ) to conclude the polution cleanup contract with an approved by MSA (the PRC's Marine Safety Agency) polution response company before calling any PRC port.
For the time being, it is understood that the mentioned clean up contractors will bear responsibility for carrying out clean up operations in case of an incident under the supervision of MSA. There will be more than one contractor in every chinese port.
The contractors have to be approved by MSA as well as the kind of response contracts that will be concluded between the operators and the contractors.
It is known that MSA will try to complete approval of applications of responders within 30 working days, however this may result in a very short period of time within which operators will be able to conclude the contracts before 1 March 2010. An extension may be given, but, since such extension is not forthcomming, every effort should be given to ensure compliance by 1 March 2010.
A breach of regulations may brings fines amounting from RMB 10,000 to 300,000 depending on the breach.
Tuesday 17 November 2009
China introduces regulations for the prevention and control of marine polution
On the 1-st of March, 2010, the shipping community expects the regulations of the People's Republic of China on prevention and control of marine polution from vessels to take effect. The regulation aims to govern polution prevention, response measures and clean up in PRC waters.
The legislation to take effect will include requirements to contract with approved oil spill response companies as well as the requirement to maintain insurance or any financial security to cover liabilities stemming from oil polution.
The regulations include a wide range of issues, e.g. the discharge of oil pollutants, spill response planning, obtaining permissions for dumping and dumping of wastes, clean-up arrangements, reporting, handling and investigating of polution incidents, compensations and penalties for not complying with regulations.
The regulations will introduce compulsary insurance regime for all ships of more than or equal to 1,000 gt carrying non-oil cargoes in order to cover claims stemming from oil polution.
Interestingly, the PRC ratifed the International Convention on Civil Liability for Bunker Oil Pollution damage (also known as 2001 Bunkers Convention) at the end of 2008, and the 1992 International Convention on Civil Liability for Oil Pollution Damage (1992 CLC) . However, the PRC is not a member to the 1992 International Convention on the Establishment of an International Fund for Compensation for Oil Pollution Damage (1992 IOPC Fund).
The regulations will reserve establishment of a domestic oil pollution compensation fund.
Also, the regulations will mainly reflect the liability provisions contained in the 1992 CLC and the 2001 Bunkers Convention . ( The former concerns liabilities of the owner for pollution stemming from the carriage of persistent oil, while the latter concerns liabilities of the owner for damage due to bunker oil spills ).
Any vessel trading within PRC territorial waters (except those less than 1,000 gt carrying non-oil cargoes) will be obliged to maintain insurance or other financial security to comply with the requirements of the Chinese Maritime Code or the 1992 CLC and 2001 Bunkers Convention .
To maintain awareness, the PRC's Maritime Safety Agency (MSA) will prepair and publish a list of competent insurance providers.
The legislation to take effect will include requirements to contract with approved oil spill response companies as well as the requirement to maintain insurance or any financial security to cover liabilities stemming from oil polution.
The regulations include a wide range of issues, e.g. the discharge of oil pollutants, spill response planning, obtaining permissions for dumping and dumping of wastes, clean-up arrangements, reporting, handling and investigating of polution incidents, compensations and penalties for not complying with regulations.
The regulations will introduce compulsary insurance regime for all ships of more than or equal to 1,000 gt carrying non-oil cargoes in order to cover claims stemming from oil polution.
Interestingly, the PRC ratifed the International Convention on Civil Liability for Bunker Oil Pollution damage (also known as 2001 Bunkers Convention) at the end of 2008, and the 1992 International Convention on Civil Liability for Oil Pollution Damage (1992 CLC) . However, the PRC is not a member to the 1992 International Convention on the Establishment of an International Fund for Compensation for Oil Pollution Damage (1992 IOPC Fund).
The regulations will reserve establishment of a domestic oil pollution compensation fund.
Also, the regulations will mainly reflect the liability provisions contained in the 1992 CLC and the 2001 Bunkers Convention . ( The former concerns liabilities of the owner for pollution stemming from the carriage of persistent oil, while the latter concerns liabilities of the owner for damage due to bunker oil spills ).
Any vessel trading within PRC territorial waters (except those less than 1,000 gt carrying non-oil cargoes) will be obliged to maintain insurance or other financial security to comply with the requirements of the Chinese Maritime Code or the 1992 CLC and 2001 Bunkers Convention .
To maintain awareness, the PRC's Maritime Safety Agency (MSA) will prepair and publish a list of competent insurance providers.
Friday 13 November 2009
Bunker prices review
Bunker price is known to be an indicator of shipping's healthiness. Monitoring of bunker price fluctuations is important for taking decisions regarding bunker programs for ships. This short review aims to set an eye on to this objective.
| |
||||
Wednesday 11 November 2009
Laytime calculation examples : helping solutions
There has been a growing interest in the shipping community to speeding-up laytime calculations. A professional doing laytime calcs knows how time consuming it is, especially if the one has to work under time pressure. Often, those limited hours of private life have to be spent on reverting to lengthy time sheets. But, what can be done about that? It would be great to, sometimes, outsource the problem solver .
On the other hand, beginners, having yet little experience, feel a need for support to decide whether to count a particular period or not. Clearly, cost of mistake can be too high, since the size of despatch or demurrage can effect final results to a great extent. So, if someone could provide alternative calculations, then, by comparing final figures, it would become possible to come to a final conclusion.
We therefore decided to launch a service for fast and precise laytime calculations for insignificant fees! Actually, we believe, a solution seeker may decide how much to pay ! Remember we have got a nicely designed laytime calculator previously described in one of the posts. Please kindly e-mail us to : maritimedomain@yahoo.com . And we also invite the problem solvers!
The reader is also referred to our Laytime Calculation pages for discussions, detailed analysis and review of hard cases.
On the other hand, beginners, having yet little experience, feel a need for support to decide whether to count a particular period or not. Clearly, cost of mistake can be too high, since the size of despatch or demurrage can effect final results to a great extent. So, if someone could provide alternative calculations, then, by comparing final figures, it would become possible to come to a final conclusion.
We therefore decided to launch a service for fast and precise laytime calculations for insignificant fees! Actually, we believe, a solution seeker may decide how much to pay ! Remember we have got a nicely designed laytime calculator previously described in one of the posts. Please kindly e-mail us to : maritimedomain@yahoo.com . And we also invite the problem solvers!
The reader is also referred to our Laytime Calculation pages for discussions, detailed analysis and review of hard cases.
Tuesday 6 October 2009
Destination dilemma
It is known that the terms of the bills of lading override the terms of the single trip time-charter party. That is why the shipowner have to be very careful to make sure that the destination stated in the bills of lading is exactly the same as agreed in the charter party. Imagine that, in accordance with the charter party, the ports of discharge include e.g. ports out of Saudi Arabian Red Sea or in charterers' option - ports out of Egypt. Unexpectedly, the charterers produced the drafts of the bills of lading for the owners prior approval, where the charterers include the ports out of Saudi Arabian Persian Gulf as well - apparently not in line with the governing charter party. The owner is very surprised! Since the freight rate does not take the Persian Gulf ports in to account, it is unclear how the ship will execute the voyage around the Arabian Peninsula. Yet, the shipowner will be obliged to do so! Therefore the shipowner rejects the Persian Gulf ports at once.
Suddenly, the charterers revert saying that they may sign a letter of indemnity in accordance with the shipowner's wording saying e.g. that the charterers should not discharge in the Persian Gulf ports. Yet, where is the guarantee that they won't do it, since the cargo receiver is not defined? It is a kind of dilemma a shipowner may practically face.
Suddenly, the charterers revert saying that they may sign a letter of indemnity in accordance with the shipowner's wording saying e.g. that the charterers should not discharge in the Persian Gulf ports. Yet, where is the guarantee that they won't do it, since the cargo receiver is not defined? It is a kind of dilemma a shipowner may practically face.
Wednesday 30 September 2009
Laytime calculations in the spreadsheets
There has been a number of questions in the shipping community on a fast and most efficient way of laytime calculation. In addition to that it should be cost effective. In this short review we will address on how to make such a tool from the scratch.
A widely available vehicle to solve the problem is the spreedsheet application e.g. MS Excel or Openoffice.org Calc and etc. We will review an example of laytime calculation for a drybulk carrier on basis of one load- and one discharge port.
The key parameters to take into account include the following :
(*) the total cargo quantity in metric tons as stated in the bills of lading
(*) rate of loading (and discharge) in metric tons per weather working day of 24 consecutive hours
(*) rate of demurrage in US dollars per day. The despatch rate is half the demurrage rate unless otherwise agreed in the charter party.
(*) exact date and time stated in the Notice of Readiness (NOR) and tendered by the Master on arrival port ( or berth ).
and, finally,
(*) the statement of facts (SOF) , also known as the time sheet, with accurate recordings received from the port agent.
Normally, this data will suffice to derive the final despatch or demurrage, the balance due to the charterers or the shipowners.
The logic behind the laytime calculations is quite straightforward. Firstly, unless already known from the charter party, calculate the time allowed to complete the loading or discharging.
Secondly, find the commencement of laytime by adding the turn time to the time of Notice of Readiness. Also remember that laytime may not be commenced before commencement of laycan period, unless otherwise agreed in the charter party.
Then, sum up all the time-used intervals to find the total time-used. In the spreadsheet you may prefer to get a floating point value of the days used.
Finally, measure the difference between the time-allowed and the time-used, and multiply the obtained difference by the rate of despatch or demurrage depending on whether the difference is negative or positive respectively.
In the spreadsheet, the time intervals are properly summed up after adjustments of the properties of the cells to the time format. Make sure that the accuracy is properly set to your satisfaction.
Our IT-department has done a very good job. Click the picture to see the results obtained at the end.
It's easy, is not it! And there is no need to overpay for the ad-hoc software! Please note that you can easily request a copy of a ready-to-use laytime calculator from us against a small remuneration remitted to our PayPal account just to cover a glass of beer and a printer cartridge :) We can also render you our assistance in case you are completely lost with your laytime calculus. Either way, just contact me at : maritimedomain@yahoo.com , best regards, Maris.
PS: You are most welcome to visit our Laytime Calculations pages for discussions, review and analysis of hard cases.
Tuesday 14 July 2009
Checklist before signing bills of lading
To recap our discussion, in this section, we are placing a checklist to comply with prior to signing the bills of lading.
- The form of the bill of lading should be as mentioned in the charter party.
- All terms of the charter party are incorporated in the bill of lading.
- The name of vessel is stated correctly. (sometimes it is overlooked because the template may contain a name of a vessel of previous shipment)
- Both the place of loading and the place of discharge are stated correctly. Sometimes, the bills of lading may mention places of receipt and delivery other than the place of loading and discharge (depending on the conditions of carriage).
- The date and place of cargo receipt are accurate, i.e. if the vessel has been under loading ops for several days, the last day of completion/sailing is the date to be mentioned.
- Accurate description of the goods and the relevant Master's clausing are stated accordingly.
- The clause "Shipped on deck" is duly introduced if the cargo so carried.
- Check whether the carriage term e.g. LILO (liner in, liner out) or FIFO (free in, free out) defining the carrier's scope of responsibility are applicable or not.
- The Master signs only correct number of originals of bills of lading, each of which is identical and stamped "Original".
- Any copy of a bill of lading is stamped as "Non-negotiable copy".
- The Master should be cautious if the cargo value is mentioned in the bill of lading. The Master's company should be informed as the extra insurance or freight may be applicable, moreover, the bills of lading with stated cargo value are not generally P&I covered.
- The carriage instructions (e.g. temperature regime) inserted in the bills of lading should be checked with the shipper.
- If the cargo is shipped to the U. S., a unique series of numbers, assigned to the carrier, must be mentioned in the bills of lading (e.g. the carrier bond)
- Last but not least, the Master signs the bills of lading at the bottom of the bill of lading face as appropriate and not elsewhere as may be requested by the shippers.
- The form of the bill of lading should be as mentioned in the charter party.
- All terms of the charter party are incorporated in the bill of lading.
- The name of vessel is stated correctly. (sometimes it is overlooked because the template may contain a name of a vessel of previous shipment)
- Both the place of loading and the place of discharge are stated correctly. Sometimes, the bills of lading may mention places of receipt and delivery other than the place of loading and discharge (depending on the conditions of carriage).
- The date and place of cargo receipt are accurate, i.e. if the vessel has been under loading ops for several days, the last day of completion/sailing is the date to be mentioned.
- Accurate description of the goods and the relevant Master's clausing are stated accordingly.
- The clause "Shipped on deck" is duly introduced if the cargo so carried.
- Check whether the carriage term e.g. LILO (liner in, liner out) or FIFO (free in, free out) defining the carrier's scope of responsibility are applicable or not.
- The Master signs only correct number of originals of bills of lading, each of which is identical and stamped "Original".
- Any copy of a bill of lading is stamped as "Non-negotiable copy".
- The Master should be cautious if the cargo value is mentioned in the bill of lading. The Master's company should be informed as the extra insurance or freight may be applicable, moreover, the bills of lading with stated cargo value are not generally P&I covered.
- The carriage instructions (e.g. temperature regime) inserted in the bills of lading should be checked with the shipper.
- If the cargo is shipped to the U. S., a unique series of numbers, assigned to the carrier, must be mentioned in the bills of lading (e.g. the carrier bond)
- Last but not least, the Master signs the bills of lading at the bottom of the bill of lading face as appropriate and not elsewhere as may be requested by the shippers.
Clausing the bills of lading with "ship's figures"
If, by reasonable inspection, the Master and/or his representative have been able to determine the number, quantity and weight loaded on board, but the shippers' figures stated in the bills of lading are different from the Master's figures by an amount beyond a "normal" difference (we will discuss the normal difference later), the Master should request the shippers to remove their figures from the bills of lading. In no circumstances the Master is obliged to issue the bills of lading with false figures ( even provided by the shippers/charterers). However, should the shippers/charterers be insisting on their figures to be shown, the ship's figures should be used as well. The Master clauses the bills of lading with the ships's figure, for instance with a wording "ship's figures, as per draft survey 27'942 mts" or "3 big bags in dispute".
It is not sufficient to clause the bills of lading with "number, weight and quantity unknow", given that the Master has determined the number, weight and quantity and found that the difference with shipper's figures is beyond normal. However, if the difference is equal to or less than normal, the clause "number, weight and quantity unknow" can be applied.
So, what is the normal difference?
It may become disputable in some cases, but the accuracy of the properly executed draft survey is 0.5%. Apparently, if the shippers' figures exceed the Master's figure given by draft survey by more than 0.5%, the bills of lading should be claused. To avoid possible claims for shortage at destination, it is in practice of shipowners to order a draft surveyor from the P&I corespondent (at the port of loading).
Interestingly that the Master can fairly clause "number, quantity and weight unknown", if the Master's figure exceeds the shipper's figure in the bill of lading presented for signature.
Both the ship and the shore should recalculate their figures as mistakes are well possible.
The Master should be beware of the "shippers'" clauses like "shipped on board" or "clean on board", as such statements may be interpreted that cargo was loaded in accordance with shipper's figures. The Master should deal with such clauses as we discussed on the ... of June in section "General Clausing".
If the Hamburg rules are applicable, the Master should be cautious to specify all inaccuracies or the absense of reasonable means of checking.
It is not sufficient to clause the bills of lading with "number, weight and quantity unknow", given that the Master has determined the number, weight and quantity and found that the difference with shipper's figures is beyond normal. However, if the difference is equal to or less than normal, the clause "number, weight and quantity unknow" can be applied.
So, what is the normal difference?
It may become disputable in some cases, but the accuracy of the properly executed draft survey is 0.5%. Apparently, if the shippers' figures exceed the Master's figure given by draft survey by more than 0.5%, the bills of lading should be claused. To avoid possible claims for shortage at destination, it is in practice of shipowners to order a draft surveyor from the P&I corespondent (at the port of loading).
Interestingly that the Master can fairly clause "number, quantity and weight unknown", if the Master's figure exceeds the shipper's figure in the bill of lading presented for signature.
Both the ship and the shore should recalculate their figures as mistakes are well possible.
The Master should be beware of the "shippers'" clauses like "shipped on board" or "clean on board", as such statements may be interpreted that cargo was loaded in accordance with shipper's figures. The Master should deal with such clauses as we discussed on the ... of June in section "General Clausing".
If the Hamburg rules are applicable, the Master should be cautious to specify all inaccuracies or the absense of reasonable means of checking.
Clausing the bills of lading with "number/quantity and/or weight unknown"
We continue our small talk on the clausing the bills of lading. Today, we will look into a situation when the Master and/or his representative were unable to determine the number, quantity or weight by reasonable inspection.
The Master should request the shippers to delete/omit the respective figures of the "number, quantity or weight" of cargo loaded, only if such figures were not / can not be determined by the Master and/or his representative by the reasonable inspection. In such circumstances, the Master is not obliged to issue the bills of lading showing the respective figures. However, if the the figures can not be omitted, the bills of lading should be claused with "number unknown", "quantity unknown" and/or "weight unknown". It is not recommended to use such wording as "weight/number/quantity said by the shippers to be" as being less protective! Stating a reason, in the bills of lading, as to why the number, quantity and weight are unknown is advisable.
The Master should request the shippers to delete/omit the respective figures of the "number, quantity or weight" of cargo loaded, only if such figures were not / can not be determined by the Master and/or his representative by the reasonable inspection. In such circumstances, the Master is not obliged to issue the bills of lading showing the respective figures. However, if the the figures can not be omitted, the bills of lading should be claused with "number unknown", "quantity unknown" and/or "weight unknown". It is not recommended to use such wording as "weight/number/quantity said by the shippers to be" as being less protective! Stating a reason, in the bills of lading, as to why the number, quantity and weight are unknown is advisable.
Monday 13 July 2009
Sales and Purchase : bulker for sale
Our sellers offer a chance to inspect a vessel for sale (a bulker with dwt of 53'483 mts) at Taboneo , Indonesia, where she is under loading ops now. (Our Ref.: 483516)
SELLERS INVITE BEST O/R OFFER BY COB 15TH JULY, TAIPEI TIME BASIS
PROMPT CP FREE DELIVERY.
SHIP-NAME : D DUCKLING
DWT : 53483
DRAFT : 12.3M
BUILT-YEAR : 2006
BUILDER : JAPAN
FLAG : PANAMA
CLASS : NK SS 3/11 DD 03/11
HA-HO : 5/5
GRAIN-BALE : 68927/65526CBM
GEARS : CR 4X30.5T
MAIN-ENG : MAN-B&W 6S50MC-C BHP 12889
SPEED/COMP. : 14 KN
DIMENSIONS : 189.94X182X32.26X17.3M
(ALL DETAILS GIVEN IN GOOD FAITH W.O.G.)
SELLERS ARE KEEN AND DEFINITE ! PLS TAKE CHANCE TO INSPECT THE VESSEL !
SELLERS INVITE BEST O/R OFFER BY COB 15TH JULY, TAIPEI TIME BASIS
PROMPT CP FREE DELIVERY.
SHIP-NAME : D DUCKLING
DWT : 53483
DRAFT : 12.3M
BUILT-YEAR : 2006
BUILDER : JAPAN
FLAG : PANAMA
CLASS : NK SS 3/11 DD 03/11
HA-HO : 5/5
GRAIN-BALE : 68927/65526CBM
GEARS : CR 4X30.5T
MAIN-ENG : MAN-B&W 6S50MC-C BHP 12889
SPEED/COMP. : 14 KN
DIMENSIONS : 189.94X182X32.26X17.3M
(ALL DETAILS GIVEN IN GOOD FAITH W.O.G.)
SELLERS ARE KEEN AND DEFINITE ! PLS TAKE CHANCE TO INSPECT THE VESSEL !
STEELS: ITAGUAI - Brazil / KAOHSIUNG
Gentlemen, the following hot stem is in the air! Our Ref.: 483500
40,000 MTONS STEELS +/- 10% MOLCHOPT
ITAGUAI (EX-SEPETIBA) - BRAZIL / KAOHSIUNG
2.700mt/workable hold/wwd SHINC max 3 holds / FIOS CQD COP (COILS MIN 15 / MAX 25 MT)
20-25TH AUG
c/p GENCON 94 + REVISED RIDDER
2,5 TTL COM
DEAD LINE FOR OFFERS JULY 14TH - 12:00 HS RIO TIME
OFFERS MUST VALID TILL JULY 16TH - 12:00 HS RIO TIME
COMPLETE ORDER AND PACKING LIST AVAILABLE UPON REQUEST.
- Vessel shall be geared with minimum 25 metric tons per crane
- Minimum outreach of cranes shall be of 6 metres from side of vessel and not from crane.
- Minimum LOA of vessel shall be of 160 metres.
- Maximum LOA of vessel shall be of 210 metres.
- Gangway ladder both sides to be located at aftewards.
- Vessel?s age maximum 20 years
BEST OFFER are INVITED, as usual !
40,000 MTONS STEELS +/- 10% MOLCHOPT
ITAGUAI (EX-SEPETIBA) - BRAZIL / KAOHSIUNG
2.700mt/workable hold/wwd SHINC max 3 holds / FIOS CQD COP (COILS MIN 15 / MAX 25 MT)
20-25TH AUG
c/p GENCON 94 + REVISED RIDDER
2,5 TTL COM
DEAD LINE FOR OFFERS JULY 14TH - 12:00 HS RIO TIME
OFFERS MUST VALID TILL JULY 16TH - 12:00 HS RIO TIME
COMPLETE ORDER AND PACKING LIST AVAILABLE UPON REQUEST.
- Vessel shall be geared with minimum 25 metric tons per crane
- Minimum outreach of cranes shall be of 6 metres from side of vessel and not from crane.
- Minimum LOA of vessel shall be of 160 metres.
- Maximum LOA of vessel shall be of 210 metres.
- Gangway ladder both sides to be located at aftewards.
- Vessel?s age maximum 20 years
BEST OFFER are INVITED, as usual !
Sunday 12 July 2009
The terminal of the future
It is true that so many exciting things can be found in the internet! A great insight into a container terminal of the future gives a link, which the author placed to "My Favorites". Thanks to the artists, we can witness how multimodal transport will deliver the containerized goods from overseas to the hinterland one day in the future to come. It is a kind of an eye-opening video that reveals the true meaning of the word "trans-port", which should be read separately in two parts, and, then, back again as a single entity. It is questionable, how much could such a project cost!? Yet, very exciting video!
Thursday 9 July 2009
Case study : part 2
The cargo marks were apparently unknown to the Master. Indeed, in this situation, the Master is not obliged to issue the bills of lading showing the cargo marks, but given that the marks can not be neglected, the bills of lading should be claused with "cargo marks unknown".
Due to a great deal of work to be done with the cargo inspection, a surveyor was appointed by the shipowner to cooperate with the Master.
However, both the Master and the surveyor have not determined that some cargo marks, presented in the bills of lading, are different from their findings. Otherwise, surely, they would clause the bills of lading to reflect such discrepancy.
Moreother, some generals were stowed on weather deck, and the marks on them were not clear enough by the time of stowage. Apparently, such marks would not remain legible until the end of the voyage, but this was not claused in the bills of lading with "marks not clear", or "Master suspects that marks will not remain legible until the end of the carriage".
Fortunately, there were no conflicting statements to the Master's clausing, which the Master should have been beware of e.g. "shipped on board" or "clean on board". (Frankly, the Master was very apathetic to clausing, and delegated all the work to the surveyor). Besides, the Hamburg Rules were not applied. Otherwise, the Master would have to specify any inaccuracy, grounds of suspicion or the absence of reasonable means of checking.
To be continued ...
Due to a great deal of work to be done with the cargo inspection, a surveyor was appointed by the shipowner to cooperate with the Master.
However, both the Master and the surveyor have not determined that some cargo marks, presented in the bills of lading, are different from their findings. Otherwise, surely, they would clause the bills of lading to reflect such discrepancy.
Moreother, some generals were stowed on weather deck, and the marks on them were not clear enough by the time of stowage. Apparently, such marks would not remain legible until the end of the voyage, but this was not claused in the bills of lading with "marks not clear", or "Master suspects that marks will not remain legible until the end of the carriage".
Fortunately, there were no conflicting statements to the Master's clausing, which the Master should have been beware of e.g. "shipped on board" or "clean on board". (Frankly, the Master was very apathetic to clausing, and delegated all the work to the surveyor). Besides, the Hamburg Rules were not applied. Otherwise, the Master would have to specify any inaccuracy, grounds of suspicion or the absence of reasonable means of checking.
To be continued ...
Wednesday 8 July 2009
New cargo orders
Our work, interrupted by a short term break caused by the summer lull and the author's vacation, is resumed with a new order. Our readers, involved in the chartering activities, may find the following one very interesting.
Please offer firm!
Ref.: IN482403
For acct ADM
25.000 mts 5% wheat stw abt 44'
Galveston / Fortaleza
laycan 15/25 July
6000 sshex / 8000 shinc
5 pct addcom past us
Need gear min 15 mt.
Pleased to hear!
Please offer firm!
Ref.: IN482403
For acct ADM
25.000 mts 5% wheat stw abt 44'
Galveston / Fortaleza
laycan 15/25 July
6000 sshex / 8000 shinc
5 pct addcom past us
Need gear min 15 mt.
Pleased to hear!
Friday 26 June 2009
Case study : part 1
Today, we will look into a story of a happy Captain who failed to inspect the order and condition of the cargo, but luckily escaped all severe consequences. To brief this case, the vessel was on a timecharter trip from ports of China to Congo with generals: cement in bags, vehicles, some trucks and containers. Can you imagine how much work would have to be done by the Master? One may know that regardless whether doing a timecharter or a single voayge, the carrier bears the same obligations as per bills of lading. That's why our Captain would have to be well aware of the order and condition of the cargo loaded, and pay attention to the appearance of bills of ladings.
So, clausing "order and condition unknown to Master" is not acceptable, since the Master is obliged to inspect order and condition. He should avoid a wide clausing, since such may be meaningless. For instance, "totally 10 vehicles, 3 vehicles with broken bulbs, remaining ones are in apparent order and condition" is better than "totally 10 vehicles, some with broken bulbs", since the last wording is too wide. If the reason of damage is known, e.g. damaged caused by stevedores, it should also be mentioned. Where practicable, the clausing should include reference to package number, e.g. package N234 torn. Apparently, the Captain was unable to determine by inspection the cargo marks and seal numbers (as same are not mentioned in the Mate's receipts) . If the bills of lading show such unknown to the Master marks, the Master should request the shippers to delete the reference to them. To be continued ...
So, clausing "order and condition unknown to Master" is not acceptable, since the Master is obliged to inspect order and condition. He should avoid a wide clausing, since such may be meaningless. For instance, "totally 10 vehicles, 3 vehicles with broken bulbs, remaining ones are in apparent order and condition" is better than "totally 10 vehicles, some with broken bulbs", since the last wording is too wide. If the reason of damage is known, e.g. damaged caused by stevedores, it should also be mentioned. Where practicable, the clausing should include reference to package number, e.g. package N234 torn. Apparently, the Captain was unable to determine by inspection the cargo marks and seal numbers (as same are not mentioned in the Mate's receipts) . If the bills of lading show such unknown to the Master marks, the Master should request the shippers to delete the reference to them. To be continued ...
Thursday 25 June 2009
General clausing Bills of Lading
In the course of several days, we have been discussing the procedure of signing bills of lading. It has been mentioned that the description of the goods, its apparent order and condition should be accurate to 100%. To recap the main line of discussion, if a bill of lading is not accurate then it should not be signed. As simple as that. Instead , a replacing bill of lading with accurate description should be demanded. If such provided, all originals and copies of the previous erroneous bills of lading should be destroyed. However, due to a time limitation, a replacement is not always possible. Therefore, the inaccurate bills of lading should be claused before signing and issuing. Clausing means writing a remark on the bill of lading with actual finding.
The Master should not give way to requests of the charterers or shippers to accept a "letter of indemnity" in return for issuing a clean bill of lading, given that there are doubts as to the apparent order, condition and/or description of the goods. Even if the charterers and/or shippers argue that the letter of credit (and the future of the sales contract) is dependant on the "clean" bill of lading, unhappily, it is their problem. One way or another, at this stage, the Captain is the Buyer's representative acting on his behalf with respect to clausing the goods.
Besides, the Master has no way to check and to know whether clausing bills of lading is of commercial importance or not for this particular deal, but he is obliged to issue correct bills of lading anyway.
The Master should be very carefull with respect to the wording for clausing. (this we will try to analyse in one of our discussions to come). As has been mentioned, clausing must comply with Mate's receipts. If Master can't provide required carriage conditons, say, required degree of moisture and temperature, he should clause bills of ladings. If clausing can't be done on the face side, it is made on the reverse side with appropriate reference on the face side. There must not be contradicting statements. Contradicting statements should be overridden by handwrinting. It is in practice and widely accepted that handwriting overrides typed statements, while typed statements override printed statements. If there is no space on the bill of lading for clausing, an attachment should be used duly signed, dated and stamped "original as per bill of lading". If, due to limited time, the Master has no time to check bills of lading, he may authorise and instruct the ship's agent to issue bills of lading on his / carrier's behalf.
The Master should not give way to requests of the charterers or shippers to accept a "letter of indemnity" in return for issuing a clean bill of lading, given that there are doubts as to the apparent order, condition and/or description of the goods. Even if the charterers and/or shippers argue that the letter of credit (and the future of the sales contract) is dependant on the "clean" bill of lading, unhappily, it is their problem. One way or another, at this stage, the Captain is the Buyer's representative acting on his behalf with respect to clausing the goods.
Besides, the Master has no way to check and to know whether clausing bills of lading is of commercial importance or not for this particular deal, but he is obliged to issue correct bills of lading anyway.
The Master should be very carefull with respect to the wording for clausing. (this we will try to analyse in one of our discussions to come). As has been mentioned, clausing must comply with Mate's receipts. If Master can't provide required carriage conditons, say, required degree of moisture and temperature, he should clause bills of ladings. If clausing can't be done on the face side, it is made on the reverse side with appropriate reference on the face side. There must not be contradicting statements. Contradicting statements should be overridden by handwrinting. It is in practice and widely accepted that handwriting overrides typed statements, while typed statements override printed statements. If there is no space on the bill of lading for clausing, an attachment should be used duly signed, dated and stamped "original as per bill of lading". If, due to limited time, the Master has no time to check bills of lading, he may authorise and instruct the ship's agent to issue bills of lading on his / carrier's behalf.
Tuesday 23 June 2009
Prospective cargoes
Gentlemen, in this section you can post prospective cargoes to be shipped. Please do not forget to mention your commission, if the case.
Monday 22 June 2009
Mate's receipts
The role of the Mate's receipts issued by the Master to the shipper is to prepare the bills of lading. The Mate's receipts are returned back to the Master in exchange for the signed bills of lading. (it is advisable for the Master to have a copy of all Mate's receipts on board to be able to compare with the bills of lading presented for signature ). Obviously the description of the goods in Mate's receipts should reflect the factual cargo being loaded. Otherwise Mate's receipts can be claused before signing. The Mate's receipt is the evidence in its own right of the condition of the goods as well as when same are received.
If the bills of lading can not be prepaired by the time of vessel's departure (e.g. the cargo has not been sold yet), the Captain may be requested to authourise his agent and/or shippers to sign bills of lading on his behalf. The Master issues a letter of authorisation to the agent and/or charterer, and ensures that cargo description and the date of shipment are accurate in Mate's receips. He also ensures that the mate's receipts contain all details and remarks that the bills of lading should contain. (The letter of authorisation clearly states that the bills of lading shall be signed in accordance with mate's reeipts. ) If the charterer and/or agent refuses to sign the bills of lading in accordance with Mate's receipts (or accep the letter of authorisation), the Captain shall issue a letter of protest and inform his management.
If the bills of lading can not be prepaired by the time of vessel's departure (e.g. the cargo has not been sold yet), the Captain may be requested to authourise his agent and/or shippers to sign bills of lading on his behalf. The Master issues a letter of authorisation to the agent and/or charterer, and ensures that cargo description and the date of shipment are accurate in Mate's receips. He also ensures that the mate's receipts contain all details and remarks that the bills of lading should contain. (The letter of authorisation clearly states that the bills of lading shall be signed in accordance with mate's reeipts. ) If the charterer and/or agent refuses to sign the bills of lading in accordance with Mate's receipts (or accep the letter of authorisation), the Captain shall issue a letter of protest and inform his management.
Dealing with damaged cargo
At the beginning of the new business week, we continue our talk on dealing with the damaged goods.
If it is clearly recognized that the cargo is damaged, and given that the charter party requires clean bills of lading, any cargo which is not in apparent good order and condition must be rejected by the Master. The shipper must provide a replacement in this case (otherwise clean bills of lading must not be issued ). Captain informs the shippers and demands for a confirmation in writing that the bills of lading will be claused, unless the damaged are replaced with good. If the shipper does not accept claused bills of lading, and is not providing a replacement of goods, the Master should issue a protest in writing stating that he is at liberty to reject the cargo. If there is no effect, the Master stops loading operations, if partial cargo have already been loaded, the Master takes steps to discharge the cargo, if such means of discharge are available. However, the Master should not give formal rejection without appoval from his company, as such step may result is cancellation of the charter party.
The damage to goods may be caused by stevedores at time of loading. The Master should request for replacement of such, and should protest against stevedores describing the damage.
Broken container seals are dealt similar to damaged cargo. The shipper should replace such seal with a new one. If the shipper refuses to replace the seal, the Master should protest in writing, replace the seal and clause the Mate's receipts. The Captain should also examine the contents of container for apparent good order and condition of goods inside. The damages to the goods inside are treated the same way as have been described.
If it is clearly recognized that the cargo is damaged, and given that the charter party requires clean bills of lading, any cargo which is not in apparent good order and condition must be rejected by the Master. The shipper must provide a replacement in this case (otherwise clean bills of lading must not be issued ). Captain informs the shippers and demands for a confirmation in writing that the bills of lading will be claused, unless the damaged are replaced with good. If the shipper does not accept claused bills of lading, and is not providing a replacement of goods, the Master should issue a protest in writing stating that he is at liberty to reject the cargo. If there is no effect, the Master stops loading operations, if partial cargo have already been loaded, the Master takes steps to discharge the cargo, if such means of discharge are available. However, the Master should not give formal rejection without appoval from his company, as such step may result is cancellation of the charter party.
The damage to goods may be caused by stevedores at time of loading. The Master should request for replacement of such, and should protest against stevedores describing the damage.
Broken container seals are dealt similar to damaged cargo. The shipper should replace such seal with a new one. If the shipper refuses to replace the seal, the Master should protest in writing, replace the seal and clause the Mate's receipts. The Captain should also examine the contents of container for apparent good order and condition of goods inside. The damages to the goods inside are treated the same way as have been described.
Friday 19 June 2009
Hague/Hague-Visby Rules : cargo inspection
In the post of this morning, we will go into some operational aspects of cargo inspection. Before signing bills of lading, a Captain should be familiar with the provisions of the Hague/Hague-Visby Rules. Some part of these rules concerns his obligation , as the Master, to arrange cargo inspection. Should the Master fail to inspect, he will not be able to check the accuracy of the cargo description in the bills of lading, and given strong commercial pressure, may sign inaccurate bills of lading presented by the shipper. Master should develop a strong knowledge of the cargo and be familiar with the loading and inspection practices. It is always preferrable that either the Master or his senior deck officers perform the cargo inspection. A surveyor may be appointed to perform the cargo inspection as well, but, in this case, the Master should be fully aware whether the cargo survey is performed on his behalf or not.
Referring to the Hague/Hague-Visby Rules, the goods should be inspected for "apparent order and condition". What does it mean for the Captain (or deck officer) to inspect according to the rules?
The Captain's inspection should :
- determine general type of cargo (e.g. steel, wheat, soyabean meal or coal) and type of packing;
- find and record any apparent damage or defect with the cargo;
- identify whether packing is sufficient and adequate to protect the perishable goods during sea voayge;
-be carried out by a responsible deck officer, but not a quality expert (!) ;
- identify apparent damages by sight (!) and not hidden damages, as the deck officer is not supposed to remove the package and analyse, or test the cargo as the quality expert does;
- record parts and/or sides of cargo not available (e.g. visible) for inspection;
- preferrably be done at regular intervals while loading to obtain a fuller picture and to prevent possible problems (e.g. contamination or moisturing);
- obtain samples of inspected cargo to serve as evidence of the cargo's condition;
- check whether the marks made on the cargo are readable and whether they will remain so till the end of sea voayge;
- perhaps, state reasons why number, weight or quantity can not be determined;
- accurately record results of calculation of the draft survey, tally, ullage ;
- record observations that may affect accuracy of both ship's and shipper's figures (e.g. due to swell);
So much work to do for a single Man!
Referring to the Hague/Hague-Visby Rules, the goods should be inspected for "apparent order and condition". What does it mean for the Captain (or deck officer) to inspect according to the rules?
The Captain's inspection should :
- determine general type of cargo (e.g. steel, wheat, soyabean meal or coal) and type of packing;
- find and record any apparent damage or defect with the cargo;
- identify whether packing is sufficient and adequate to protect the perishable goods during sea voayge;
-be carried out by a responsible deck officer, but not a quality expert (!) ;
- identify apparent damages by sight (!) and not hidden damages, as the deck officer is not supposed to remove the package and analyse, or test the cargo as the quality expert does;
- record parts and/or sides of cargo not available (e.g. visible) for inspection;
- preferrably be done at regular intervals while loading to obtain a fuller picture and to prevent possible problems (e.g. contamination or moisturing);
- obtain samples of inspected cargo to serve as evidence of the cargo's condition;
- check whether the marks made on the cargo are readable and whether they will remain so till the end of sea voayge;
- perhaps, state reasons why number, weight or quantity can not be determined;
- accurately record results of calculation of the draft survey, tally, ullage ;
- record observations that may affect accuracy of both ship's and shipper's figures (e.g. due to swell);
So much work to do for a single Man!
Thursday 18 June 2009
Bills of lading: accurate date
We will continue our small talk on how to arrange bills of lading properly. Accurate date of the bills of lading is very important, since the date inserted in the bill of lading evidences the date of shipment. Surprisingly, the market value of the cargo in the sales contract may be based on the date of shipment stated in the bill of lading!
Practically the Master and his agent at the port of loading ensure that the date is correct. There may be serious consequences for ante/post -dated bills of lading! The carrier may be exposed to claims from the receivers, and the P&I club will, most likely, withhold from covering such claims.
A good Captain should strongly resist offers from the charterers and/or receivers or whomever to issue ante- dated bills of lading, even against presentation of a "letter of indemnity"!
Practically the Master and his agent at the port of loading ensure that the date is correct. There may be serious consequences for ante/post -dated bills of lading! The carrier may be exposed to claims from the receivers, and the P&I club will, most likely, withhold from covering such claims.
A good Captain should strongly resist offers from the charterers and/or receivers or whomever to issue ante- dated bills of lading, even against presentation of a "letter of indemnity"!
Wednesday 17 June 2009
Signing bills of lading: consequencies of inaccuracies
The talk of this morning will concern inaccuracies in the bills of lading and consequencies for the carrier. Captain, as shipowner's representative, must do his best to avoid inaccuracies or even deliberate falsehood when signing bills of lading.
He should remember that the carrier may be exposed to claims from the receivers at the port of destination. If there are no remarks to the state of the cargo, the bills of lading are assumed to be clean. This means that the goods, delivered on board, are in good order and condition. However, if the consignee, at the port of destination, receives the goods being damaged, or finds a shortage, he is entitled to make a claim. Since the carrier will not be able to prove that the goods were loaded as described in the bills of lading, it will be difficult to protest the claim.
Accurate description of the goods is also very important for negotiable bill of lading when the transferee relies solely on the description of goods as they have been loaded (and described)!
So the poor carrier may lose his right to limit liability for cargo damage and/or shortage with some protection and indemnity (P&I) clubs, since some P&I clubs may withhold cover for claims, for example, when the description of the goods in the bills of lading is incorrect.
Therefore, in order to protect his shipowner, a good Captain should not sign bills of lading describing the cargo inaccurately, and should not give way to requests of the charterer and/or shipper to accept a letter of indemnity in return for issuing "clean" bills of lading (without fair clausing) or to issue bills of lading which describe the cargo inaccurately on purpose!
He should remember that the carrier may be exposed to claims from the receivers at the port of destination. If there are no remarks to the state of the cargo, the bills of lading are assumed to be clean. This means that the goods, delivered on board, are in good order and condition. However, if the consignee, at the port of destination, receives the goods being damaged, or finds a shortage, he is entitled to make a claim. Since the carrier will not be able to prove that the goods were loaded as described in the bills of lading, it will be difficult to protest the claim.
Accurate description of the goods is also very important for negotiable bill of lading when the transferee relies solely on the description of goods as they have been loaded (and described)!
So the poor carrier may lose his right to limit liability for cargo damage and/or shortage with some protection and indemnity (P&I) clubs, since some P&I clubs may withhold cover for claims, for example, when the description of the goods in the bills of lading is incorrect.
Therefore, in order to protect his shipowner, a good Captain should not sign bills of lading describing the cargo inaccurately, and should not give way to requests of the charterer and/or shipper to accept a letter of indemnity in return for issuing "clean" bills of lading (without fair clausing) or to issue bills of lading which describe the cargo inaccurately on purpose!
Tuesday 16 June 2009
Bill of lading : document of title
How does a Captain know to whom to deliver the cargo at the port of destination?
-> to someone who is entitled to delivery of the goods at the port of destination! Having an original of bills of lading at hands is the evidence of title.
Yet, as mentioned before, the goods can be traded while being in transit. This means that bill of lading becomes negotiable, i.e. can be transferred from a consignee with the title (mentioned in the bill of lading) to a consignee without the title (not named in the bill of lading).
The so-called order bills of lading, having the words «to order (or assigns)» inserted instead of a named consignee, allow the shipper to transfer the bill of lading to any person. To allow transfer to any person, the shipper or consignee endorses the bill of lading and the bill of lading can now be passed to the named endorsee. Once again. The endorsee can transfer the bill of lading further by adding the words «to order (or assigns)» against the named endorsee. This property of bills of lading is known as transferability!
-> to someone who is entitled to delivery of the goods at the port of destination! Having an original of bills of lading at hands is the evidence of title.
Yet, as mentioned before, the goods can be traded while being in transit. This means that bill of lading becomes negotiable, i.e. can be transferred from a consignee with the title (mentioned in the bill of lading) to a consignee without the title (not named in the bill of lading).
The so-called order bills of lading, having the words «to order (or assigns)» inserted instead of a named consignee, allow the shipper to transfer the bill of lading to any person. To allow transfer to any person, the shipper or consignee endorses the bill of lading and the bill of lading can now be passed to the named endorsee. Once again. The endorsee can transfer the bill of lading further by adding the words «to order (or assigns)» against the named endorsee. This property of bills of lading is known as transferability!
Evidence of contract of carriage
The second function of the bill of lading is the evidence of the contract of carriage between the carrier and the shipper. This function is equally applicable to bills of lading being either negotiable or not.
The reverse side of the bill of lading usually contains the terms of carriage. If the carrier and the shipper have negotiated special terms of the carriage, the relevant charter party should be incorporated in the bill of lading.
One may be inquiring why there is a need to incorporate a charter party in the bill of lading? The answer is very simple. In fact, the bill of lading may end up in the hands of a third party who is not even a charterer. Therefore, to limit the carrier’s obligation only to the terms of the charter party, such terms should be incorporated in the bill of lading by using a reference to the charter party on the face-side of the bill of lading. For example, basic general wording such as “all terms and conditions of the charter party dated … are herein incorporated” may be used.
Don't forget to ask your Master to ensure that the reference is given to a correct charter party date!
The reverse side of the bill of lading usually contains the terms of carriage. If the carrier and the shipper have negotiated special terms of the carriage, the relevant charter party should be incorporated in the bill of lading.
One may be inquiring why there is a need to incorporate a charter party in the bill of lading? The answer is very simple. In fact, the bill of lading may end up in the hands of a third party who is not even a charterer. Therefore, to limit the carrier’s obligation only to the terms of the charter party, such terms should be incorporated in the bill of lading by using a reference to the charter party on the face-side of the bill of lading. For example, basic general wording such as “all terms and conditions of the charter party dated … are herein incorporated” may be used.
Don't forget to ask your Master to ensure that the reference is given to a correct charter party date!
A look into the history of bill of lading
A curious mind may ask a question like when the bill of lading became known? May an answer be that so long ago as when the trade in the Mediterranean began to grow?
Anyway, goods to be shipped had to be recorded in a ship's register. There was no need for a bill of lading in a sense as it is understood today as long as a Merchant travelled with goods on board of his ship.
The practice began to change when the Merchant felt that he had become too old for sea voyages. He started to send goods to his agent at the port of destination. He diligently wrote instruction on the type of cargo being sent and how to deal with it: either to sell in the market or to deliver to an existent Buyer.
The Merchant found that it may be too complicated to maintain a ship, and decided to outsource a good boat. The Captain of the boat earned for living by transporting goods. That's how the first function of bill of lading (as receipt for the goods to be shipped) became active.
There was no proof for the consignee's entitlement since the carrier (Captain) knew from his copy of receipt to whom delivery to be made. The need for proof of entitlemement became evident when the goods started to be dispatched before the receiver of the goods had become known to the shipper. At those times, the cargoes were not supposed to be traded many times during the sea voayge, as they are today. Yet, the delivery could now be made either to the shipper's agent or to a third person (the buyer of the goods).
The first function of the bill of lading (being the evidence of receipt) is applicable to either negotiable or not bills of lading. The evidence of receipt implies stating the date of receipt and condition of goods (type and true state of cargo, its weight, volume and number) to the bill of lading. Ensuring accuracy of such information is very important. Master or one of the Mates checks the actual state of cargo and clauses the cargo with remarks in Mate’s receipts, and then, transfers this information to the bills of lading. Clausing bills of lading means writing a remark reflecting actual findings in condition of cargo.
Anyway, goods to be shipped had to be recorded in a ship's register. There was no need for a bill of lading in a sense as it is understood today as long as a Merchant travelled with goods on board of his ship.
The practice began to change when the Merchant felt that he had become too old for sea voyages. He started to send goods to his agent at the port of destination. He diligently wrote instruction on the type of cargo being sent and how to deal with it: either to sell in the market or to deliver to an existent Buyer.
The Merchant found that it may be too complicated to maintain a ship, and decided to outsource a good boat. The Captain of the boat earned for living by transporting goods. That's how the first function of bill of lading (as receipt for the goods to be shipped) became active.
There was no proof for the consignee's entitlement since the carrier (Captain) knew from his copy of receipt to whom delivery to be made. The need for proof of entitlemement became evident when the goods started to be dispatched before the receiver of the goods had become known to the shipper. At those times, the cargoes were not supposed to be traded many times during the sea voayge, as they are today. Yet, the delivery could now be made either to the shipper's agent or to a third person (the buyer of the goods).
The first function of the bill of lading (being the evidence of receipt) is applicable to either negotiable or not bills of lading. The evidence of receipt implies stating the date of receipt and condition of goods (type and true state of cargo, its weight, volume and number) to the bill of lading. Ensuring accuracy of such information is very important. Master or one of the Mates checks the actual state of cargo and clauses the cargo with remarks in Mate’s receipts, and then, transfers this information to the bills of lading. Clausing bills of lading means writing a remark reflecting actual findings in condition of cargo.
Instead of intro
For many centuries, bills of lading have been used for the carriage of goods in seaborne trade. Since old times, the function of it is threefold: (1) evidence the carrier's receipt of the goods; (2) the contract of carriage; (3) document of title for possession of the goods. In spite of the state-of-the-art paperless trade, for the comming future, Masters will still be obliged to sign and authorise signature of bills of lading and to deliver cargo against the same.
Bill of Lading, as an example of a cargo document, is the first, but surely not the last topic that we suggest for the shipping community to discuss in our blog. You are encouraged to investigate all the links at our blog to find an answer to a question of your interest. Should you fail to find any satisfactory answer, please leave your comment, and we will try to revert with our comprehensive advise as soon as possible. Other topics of conversation are also very welcome! Remember that you can always contact us on our e-mail!
Bill of Lading, as an example of a cargo document, is the first, but surely not the last topic that we suggest for the shipping community to discuss in our blog. You are encouraged to investigate all the links at our blog to find an answer to a question of your interest. Should you fail to find any satisfactory answer, please leave your comment, and we will try to revert with our comprehensive advise as soon as possible. Other topics of conversation are also very welcome! Remember that you can always contact us on our e-mail!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)