SEAWORTHINESS
SEAWORTHINESS- Cargo damaged as a result of malfunctioning insulating
apparatus- Seaworthiness of vessel implied warranty in bill of lading.
The plaintiff shipped a load of fruit from Fiji to Australia. On arrival the bananas which had been carried in the insulating chamber of the vessel were damaged and the plaintiff suffered damage as a result. The plaintiff alleged that the insulating machinery was not operating properly. The bill of lading implied a warranty of seaworthiness and the plaintiffs claimed for damages for negligence and breach of duty.
DECISION: Damages awarded to the plaintiff.
HELD: By section 7(1) of Ordinance No. 1 of 1926 every bill of lading has an implied warranty that the ship is seaworthy at the beginning of the voyage. To recover the plaintiff must satisfy the court that the fruit was shipped in good condition and properly packed. The defendant must satisfy the court that the insulating apparatus was in good working order. The court found that the insulating apparatus was not in working order and this went to the seaworthiness of the vessel. The bill of lading stipulates that the plaintiff must give notice of his claim within 7 days of arrival at the port of discharge. This clause did not apply because the damage was due to the unseaworthiness of the vessel. The bill of lading contained no stipulation as to seaworthiness so that was implied by s.7 (1). In that case the express terms of the bill of lading did not apply to the implied contract.
National Trading Corporation Ltd v Huggett [1999] FJHC 6; Hba0011j.98s (19 February 1999)
SEAWORTHINESS- Charterparties-implied warranty of seaworthiness at the commencement of the voyage- boat owner must indemnify charterer for repairs.
The first Defendant, the charterer was held to be liable to the Plaintiff for the repairs to the boat engine. The first Defendant was to be indemnified by the 2d Defendant, the owner of the vessel. The 2d Defendant appealed the findings. The vessel’s engine had broken down and had to be towed in while on the charter.
HELD: Appeal dismissed
DECISION: The ordinary rule is that there is an implied warranty that the ship is seaworthy at the commencement of the voyage. There was nothing in the Charter to exclude or limit this rule. The fault in the engine which caused the break-down existed when the vessel started and therefore the vessel was not seaworthy for the voyage.