مفهوم و دامنه شمول عیوب مخفی کشتی در مقررات بین المللی حمل و نقل دریایی کالا

نوع مقاله: مقاله پژوهشی

نویسندگان

1 دانشیار دانشکده حقوق و علوم سیاسی دانشگاه تهران

2 دانشجوی دکتری حقوق خصوصی دانشگاه تهران

10.22034/jlr.2019.184065.1394

چکیده

مفهوم عیب پنهان در حقوق حمل و نقل بین المللی کالا ،همواره مورد توجه بوده است لکن تشخیص خسارت ناشی از عیب مخفی به سادگی امکان پذیر نیست و در عمل با مواردی روبرو می شویم که رسیدگی به این موضوع را با مشکل مواجه می‌نماید. مقاله حاضر با تکیه رویه ی قضایی درپی ارائه ی تعریفی از مفهوم عیب پنهان، تمایز آن با مفاهیم مشابه و گستره ی دامنه ی شمول آن در تبیین مسئولیت متصدی حمل و نقل بین المللی کالا است. براساس یافته های این مقاله به نظر می رسد دامنه ی تعریف و کاربرد مفهوم عیب پنهان تقویت کننده‌ی رویکرد«معقولیت مسئولیت» متصدی حمل و نقل دریایی کالا در قبال دیگر مبانی مسئولیت است.نهایتاً اینکه امروزه با توجه به پیشرفت‌های تکنولوژی و پیچیده شدن تجهیزات مورد استفاده در کشتی‌ها، پی بردن به عیوب مخفی به مراتب مشکل‌تر شده است و به نظر می‌رسد با توجه به این پیچیدگی‌ها و عدم تخصص و توانایی صاحبان بار در جهت اثبات وجود این عیوب در زمان بروز خسارت به کالا، تنها می‌توان از طریق مؤسسات بیمه، که خسارت وارده ناشی از عیوب مخفی را تحت پوشش خود قرار می‌دهند، از صاحبان کالاها حمایت نمود چراکه این مؤسسات هم تخصص و هم توانایی اثبات این عیوب را دارا هستند و در محاکم می توانند بهتر از صاحبان بار در برابر مالکان کشتی ظاهر شوند.

کلیدواژه‌ها

موضوعات


عنوان مقاله [English]

Concept and spectrum of Latent Defect of ship in Inter national Conventions of Goods marine transportation

نویسندگان [English]

  • Amir Sadegy neshat 1
  • Hadi mashhadi 2
1 University of tehran
2 Tehran university
چکیده [English]

The concept of latent defect has always been of special interest in the law of carriage of goods by sea but the detection of damages resulting from a latent defect is not an easy task and in practice there are several obstacles. The present paper by studying the judicial precedent tries to introduce a definition of latent defect, distinguishes this concept from similar concepts, and determine its scope of application within the field of carrier’s liabilities. The paper suggests that the definition and the scope of latent defect stands in favor of Reasonableness of Responsibilities of carrier’s liability compared to other bases of liability. The present paper by studying the judicial precedent tries to introduce a definition of latent defect, distinguishes this concept from similar concepts, and determine its scope of application within the field of carrier’s liabilities. The paper suggests that the definition and the scope of latent defect stands in favor of Reasonableness of Responsibilities of carrier’s liability compared to other bases of liability.

کلیدواژه‌ها [English]

  • Latent Defect
  • Damage
  • Precautionary Measures
  • Seaworthiness
  • Maritime Carrier
منابع :

فارسی:   

1.            امید، هوشنگ، حقوق دریایی، جلد اول، (تهران: مدرسه عالی بیمه تهران، 1353).

2.            محمدزاده وادقانی، علی رضا، مسؤلیت متصدی حمل و نقل دریایی، مجله دانشکده حقوق و علوم سیاسی(دانشگاه تهران)، بهار 1381 - شماره 55.

 

انگلیسی:

Books

•             David Joseph Attard, Malgosia Fitzmaurice, Ignacio Arroyo, Norman Martinez, Elda Belja, (Eds.), The IMLI Manual on International Maritime Law: Volume II: Shipping Law, (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2016)

•             Susan Hodges, Law of Marine Insurance (London: Cavendish Publishing Limited, 1996)

•             Joseph Arnould, Law on Marine Insurance and Average, (London: London, Stevens and Sons, Ltd., 1921)

•             Ozlem Gurses , Marine Insurance Law, (London: Routledge, 2015)

•             Larry A. DiMatteo, International Business Law and the Legal Environment: A Transactional Approach, (London: Taylor & Francis, 2017)

•             G. H. Treitel, Francis, Martin Baillie Reynolds, Carver on Bills of Lading, 3rd (edn.), (London: Sweet & Maxwell, 2011)

•             Baris Soyer, Andrew Tettenborn, Carriage of Goods by Sea, Land and Air: Uni-modal and Multi-modal Transport in the 21th Century, (London: Tylor & Francis, 2014)

•             Indira Carr, International Trade Law, (Routledge,London,2010)

•             Ahmad Hussam Kassem, The Legal Aspects of Seaworthiness: Current Law and Development, Thesis Submitted to the University of Wales in fulfilment of the requirement for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy of Law, Swansea University, 2006, p. 20, at: http://discovery.ucl.ac.uk/6988/1/6988.pdf

•             Ghada Awad M. Shawgi, Liability of the Sea Carrier in the International Carriage of Goods by Sea, Thesis Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirement of the Master of Laws (LL.M.) Degree of the  University of Khartoum, 2003, at: http://khartoumspace.uofk.edu/bitstream/handle/123456789/10041/Liability%20of%20the%20Sea%20Carrier%20in%20the%20International.pdf?sequence=1.

 

Papers

•             Trine-Lise Wilhelmsen, “Hull Insurance of “Latent defects” – i.e. Errors in Design, Material or Workmanship”, Scandinavian Studies in Law,  46, 9 (2004),

•             Charles Taylor , “A Commentary on the International Hull Clauses”, Richards Hogg Lindley 2003 IHC Review , at: https://www.ctplc.com/media/72223/A-Commentary-on-the-International-Hull-Causes.pdf

•             INSIGHT, “Brief comparison of the provisions contained in the Nordic Plan, introduced in 2013, and the Institute Time Clauses Hulls 1983 (ITCH)”, online, 24 MAR 2014, at: http://www.gard.no/web/updates/content/20739836/brief-overview-of-the-nordic-plan-and-institute-time-clauses-hulls-itch

•             Brad M. Caldwell, “Marine Insurance Coverage For, Negligence”, Marine Insurance Association Of British Columbia, May 29, 2006, At: http://www.admiraltylaw.com/fisheries/Papers/ins%20coverage%20for%20negl%20pdf.pdf

•             “Sony Magnetic Products Inc. v. Merivienti O/Y United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit, 23 January 1989 863 F.2d 1537,” Admiralty Practicum: Vol. 1989: Iss. 1, Article5. Available  at: https://scholarship.law.stjohns.edu/admiralty_practicum/vol1989/iss1/5

 

 

 

Judicial Precedent

•             Sipowicz v. Wimble 370 F. Supp. 442 (1974) The GREEN LION, at: https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/FSupp/370/442/1801161/

•             Thames and Mersey Marine Insurance Co Ltd v Hamilton, Fraser and Co, ‘Inchmaree’ (1887) 12 AC 484, HL.

•             Hutchins Brothers v Royal Exchange Assurance Corp [1911] 2 K.B. 398

•             Reisman v. New Hampshire Fire Ins. Co., 312 F.2d 17, 20 (5 Cir. 1963) , at: https://casetext.com/case/reisman-v-new-hampshire-fire-insurance-company

•             Waterman S. S. Corp. v. United States S. R. & M. Co., 155 F.2d 687, 691 (5 Cir.), cert. denied, 329 U.S. 761, 67 S.Ct. 115, 91 L.Ed. 656 (1946), at: https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F2/155/687/1563506/

•             Jackson v Mumford, (1902) 8 Com Cas 61; (1904) 9 Com Cas 114, CA

•             Brown v Nitrate Producers’ SS Co (1937) 58 Ll L Rep 188

•             Caribbean Sea, [1980] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 338

•             Scindia Steamships Ltd v The London Assurance, [1937] 1 KB 639.

•             Lloyd Instruments Ltd v Northern Star Insurance Co Ltd, Miss Jay Jay [1985] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 264, ref [1987] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 32 CA

•             J. J. Lloyd Instruments Ltd. v Northern Star Insurance Co. Ltd. “Miss Jay Jay” [1987] 1Lloyd’s Rep 32

•             Ballantyne v. Mackinnon (1896) 2 Q.B. 455

•             Wayne Tank and Pump Co. Ltd. v. Employers Liability Assurance Corporation Ltd. (1974) Q.B. 57

•             Leyland Shipping Co. Ltd. v. Norwich Union Fire Insurance Society Ltd. (1918) A.C. 350

•             Secunda Marine Services Ltd. v. Liberty Mutual Insurance Co. et al., (2006) 245 N.S.R.(2d) 241 (CA), at: https://ca.vlex.com/vid/secunda-marine-v-liberty-680566377

•             Williams v. Canada (1984), 7 C.C.L.I. 198

•             Steel And Craig v The State Line Steam-Ship Co: Scs 31 Mar 1877, 3 App Cas 72, at: https://www.casemine.com/judgement/uk/5a8ff82060d03e7f57ebaf72

•             McFadden v Blue Star Line [1905] 1 KB 697

•             Eridania S.P.A. And Others v. Rudolf A. Oetker And Others (THE “FJORD WIND”)1 Lloyd’s Rep 307, p 319, at: https://www.steamshipmutual.com/publications/Articles/Articles/Unseaworth_DueDil.asp

•             Project Asia Line Inc of Delaware and United Shipping Services Limited v Andrew Shone & Others ("The Pride of Donegal")  English High Court, Commercial Court: Andrew Smith, J.: 24 January 2002EWHC 24 [2002] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 659, at: https://archive.onlinedmc.co.uk/pride_of_donegal.htm

•             Coast Ferries Ltd. v. Century Ins. Co. of Canada et al., Supreme Court Judgments , [1975] 2 S.C.R. 477 , at: https://scc-csc.lexum.com/scc-csc/scc-csc/en/item/5441/index.do

•             The Owners of Charching Vessel v. Hatim Abed El Bagi, Supreme Court decision, No 1463./1993

•             Sony Magnetic Products Inc. v. Merivienti O/Y , United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit, 23 January 1989 863 F.2d 1537

Thomas v Tyne & Wear Insurance Association [1917] 1 KB 938

Compagnia Maritima San Basilio SA v Oceanus Mutual Underwriting Association (Bermuda) Ltd (The Eurysthenes) [1976] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 171

•             Riverstone Meat Co. Pty Ltd. v. Lancashire Shipping Co. Ltd. The MUNCASTER CASTLE, (1961)1 Lloyd's Rep. 57

•             Corporation Argentina de Productores v. Royal Mail Lines Ltd,[1939]