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 ...