Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The Obligation of Seaworthiness: Shipowner and Charterer

  • Conference paper
  • First Online:
Proceedings of the 25th Pan-American Conference of Naval Engineering—COPINAVAL (COPINAVAL 2017)

Included in the following conference series:

  • 614 Accesses

Abstract

The obligation to provide a seaworthy ship is basic in the carriage of goods by sea and this is no the less the case where the contract of carriage is between a shipowner and a charterer or between a charterer and subcharterer. As the concept of seaworthiness is not usually defined in standard form for charterparties, the meaning has to be ascertained from cases decided under the common law. In charterparties, whether time, voyage, or bareboat, it is normal for the seaworthiness obligation to be laid down in express wording, but often describing the standard required as one of due diligence. Alternatively, such a due diligence standard is imported into the charterparty by means of a paramount clause, bringing into the charterparty the terms of the Hague (or Hague–Visby) Rules.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 129.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    A substantially longer and more detailed paper may be found at NUS Centre for Maritime Law Working Paper 17/11, https://law.nus.edu.sg/cml/wps.html, last accessed 2018/1/28. The standard references are: Eder, B.: Scrutton on Charterparties and Bills of Lading. 23rd edn. Sweet & Maxwell, London, art 68; Treitel. G.; Reynolds F.M.B.: Carver on Bills of Lading. 4th edn. Sweet & Maxwell, London, para 9-013; Bennett, H.N.: Carver on Charterparties. Sweet & Maxwell, London, para 3-072.

  2. 2.

    This arises by virtue of it acting as shipowner: Lyon v Mells (1804) 5 East 428, 437.

  3. 3.

    As, for example, in the Carriage of Goods by Sea Act 1971, c 21, s 1(2).

  4. 4.

    Kopitoff v Wilson (1876) 1 QBD 377, 380 (Field J). See also Lyon v Mells (1804) 5 East 428, 437; Steel v State Line Steamship Co (1877) 3 App Cas 72, 77; 84; 88.

  5. 5.

    Many cases also arise on policies of marine insurance and older cases treat the concept as being one and the same as cases on the carriage of goods by sea: J & E Kish v Charles Taylor Sons & Co [1912] AC 604, 611. Cf, however, The Bunga Seroja [1999] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 512, [18]; Carver on Charterparties (n 2), para 3-080.

  6. 6.

    Marsden, R.G.: Select Pleas in the Court of Admiralty. vol 1. Selden Society, London, 35.

  7. 7.

    [1905] 1 KB 697, 704–705. See also A E Reed & Co Ltd. v Page, Son & East Ltd. [1927] 1 KB 743, 756.

  8. 8.

    Kopitoff v Wilson (1876) 1 QBD 377, 380; Steel v State Line Steamship Co (1877) 3 App Cas 72, 77; 84; 88.

  9. 9.

    (1877) 3 App Cas 72.

  10. 10.

    See particularly at 90–91 (Lord Blackburn).

  11. 11.

    Steel & Craig v State Line Steamship Co (1878) 5 R 622, 623.

  12. 12.

    Namby v Joseph & Seagar (1890) 9 NZLR 227.

  13. 13.

    Cohn v Davidson (1877) 2 QBD 455.

  14. 14.

    The Glenfruin (1885) 10 PD 103.

  15. 15.

    The Christel Vinnen [1924] P 208; Charles Brown & Co v Nitrate Producers Steamship Co (1937) 58 Ll LR 188.

  16. 16.

    Spillers Milling & Associated Industries Ltd v The Bryntawe (1928) 32 Ll L Rep 155.

  17. 17.

    The Gundulic [1981] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 418.

  18. 18.

    The Toledo [1995] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 40.

  19. 19.

    The Torenia [1983] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 210.

  20. 20.

    The Antigoni [1991] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 209; MT Cape Bonny Tankschiffarts GmbH & Co KG v Ping An Property & Casualty Insurance Co of China Ltd [2017] EWHC 3036 (Comm); [2018] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 356, [118].

  21. 21.

    The Tatjana [1911] AC 194.

  22. 22.

    Thin v Richards & Co [1892] 2 QB 141; The Vortigern [1899] P 140.

  23. 23.

    Northumbrian Shipping Co Ltd v E Timm & Son [1939] AC 397; E B Aaby’s Rederi A/S v Union of India (The Evje No 2) [1976] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 714.

  24. 24.

    The Kriti Rex [1996] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 171, 185.

  25. 25.

    The Wilhelm (1866) 14 LT 636.

  26. 26.

    Woolf v Claggett (1800) 3 Esp 257.

  27. 27.

    The Marathon (1879) 4 Asp MLC 75.

  28. 28.

    JP Klausen & Co AS v Mediterranean Shipping Co SA [2013] EWHC 3254 (Comm).

  29. 29.

    See, eg, Edmund Weil Inc v American West African Line Inc (1945) 147 F 2d 363 (2nd Cir).

  30. 30.

    Cf The Torepo [2002] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 535 (although the discrepancy in the charts was not a material defect in the chart portfolio and the disparity was not causative).

  31. 31.

    (1872) LR 7 CP 421, affirmed (1874) LR 9 CP 390; Tattersall v The National Steamship Co Ltd (1884) 12 QBD 297, 300; AE Reed & Co Ltd v Page Son & East Ltd [1927] 1 KB 743, 754.

  32. 32.

    At 435 (Brett J).

  33. 33.

    See Owners of Cargo on the Maori King v Hughes [1895] 2 QB 550; JP Klausen & Co AS v Mediterranean Shipping Co SA [2013] EWHC 3254 (Comm).

  34. 34.

    See Tattersall v National Steamship Co Ltd (1884) 12 QBD 297; Sleigh v Tyser [1900] 2 QB 333.

  35. 35.

    The Good Friend [1984] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 586, 592; Ciampa v British India Steam Navigation Co Ltd [1915] 2 KB 774, 780.

  36. 36.

    See www.imo.org/en/OurWork/Safety/Cargoes/DangerousGoods/Pages/default.aspx, last accessed 2017/12/1.

  37. 37.

    See www.imo.org/en/OurWork/Safety/Cargoes/CargoesInBulk/Pages/default.aspx, last accessed 2017/12/1.

  38. 38.

    See www.imo.org/en/OurWork/Safety/Cargoes/CargoesInBulk/Pages/IBC-Code.aspx, last accessed 2017/12/1.

  39. 39.

    The International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea, Ch VII, reg 3 (carriage of dangerous goods in packaged form); reg 7–5 (carriage of dangerous goods in solid form in bulk).

  40. 40.

    The International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships, Annex II (control of noxious liquid substances in bulk); Annex III (prevention of pollution by harmful substances carried by sea in packaged form).

  41. 41.

    See The Aconcagua [2009] EWHC 1880 (Comm); [2010] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 1, [366].

  42. 42.

    [2000] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 255.

  43. 43.

    IMDG Code, class 3.

  44. 44.

    [2000] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 255, 266.

  45. 45.

    At 273 (for the purposes of Art III, r 1 of the Hague Rules, incorporated in the contracts of carriage.

  46. 46.

    See Hongkong Fir Shipping Co Ltd v Kawasaki Kisen Kaisha Ltd [1962] 2 QB 26, 34.

  47. 47.

    See The Merchant Shipping (Standards of Training, Certification and Watchkeeping) Regulations 2015, SI 2015/ 782, reg 46.

  48. 48.

    See ch 5, reg 14.1.

  49. 49.

    Resolution A.1047(27) (20 December 2011). For consideration in the context of autonomous ships, see Carey, L.: All hands off deck? The legal barriers to autonomous ships. NUS Law Working Paper No 2017/011, available at https://law.nus.edu.sg/cml/wps.html, last accessed 2017/12/1.

  50. 50.

    Moore v Lunn (1923) 15 Ll L Rep 155, 156 (master and chief engineer “habitual drunkards”); Standard Oil Co of New York v Clan Line Steamers Ltd [1924] AC 100, 120–121.

  51. 51.

    Rio Tinto Co Ltd v The Seed Shipping Co Ltd (1926) 24 Ll LRep 316; The Jute Express [1991] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 55.

  52. 52.

    [1962] 2 QB 26.

  53. 53.

    At 34. See also The Makedonia [1962] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 316; The Eurasian Dream [2002] EWHC 118 (Comm); [2002] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 719.

  54. 54.

    The Makedonia [1962] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 316, 335 (Hewson J).

  55. 55.

    The International Convention on Standards of Training, Certification and Watchkeeping for Seafarers (amended in 1995, 1997, and 2010).

  56. 56.

    See The Merchant Shipping (Standards of Training, Certification and Watchkeeping) Regulations 2015, SI 2015/782, pt 2.

  57. 57.

    See www.imo.org/en/About/Conventions/StatusOfConventions/Documents/Status%20-%202017.docx.pdf, last accessed 2012/12/1.

  58. 58.

    In force from 20 August 2013. See the statutory instruments passed pursuant to the Merchant Shipping Act 1995, c 21, ss 85–86, during the period 2010–2014.

  59. 59.

    See, eg, List of Certificates and Documents Required to be Carried on Board Ships (19 July 2017) FAL.2/Circ.131 MEPC.1/Circ.873 MSC.1/Circ.1586 LEG.2/Circ.3, downloadable from www.imo.org/en/Publications/SupplementsAndCDs/Documents/Certificatesonboardships.pdf, accessed 2017/11/30. Different flag administrations also lay down detailed requirements.

  60. 60.

    See Levy v Costerton (1816) 4 Camp 389; Ciampa v British India Steam Navigation Co Ltd [1915] 2 KB 774.

  61. 61.

    Dutton v Powles (1862) 2 B & S 191.

  62. 62.

    A certificate confirming that the ship is free of rats.

  63. 63.

    The Madeleine [1967] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 224, 241.

  64. 64.

    Wilson v Rankin (1865) LR 1 QB 162.

  65. 65.

    The Derby [1985] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 325.

  66. 66.

    The Silver Constellation [2008] EWHC 1904 (Comm); [2008] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 440.

  67. 67.

    See, eg, Martin v Southwark (1903) 24 S Ct 1, 3.

  68. 68.

    See, eg, Tan, W.Z.: Denmark, Norway and Singapore port authorities ink pact on E-Certificates. Lloyd’s List, 2017/4/25.

  69. 69.

    The International Safety Management Code (the ISM Code), mandatory under SOLAS 1974, ch IX (as amended): The Eurasian Dream [2002] EWHC 118 (Comm); [2002] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 719, 739. It is a breach of the carrier’s marine insurance cover not to have such certification: see, eg, International Hull Clauses (1/11/03), cl 13.1.4 and 13.1.5.

  70. 70.

    An International Ship Security Certificate is issued under the International Ship and Port Facility Security Code (the ISPS Code), mandatory under SOLAS 1974, ch XI-2. See Girvin, S.: Commercial Implications of the ISPS Code, 330 Marlus 307–355 (2005).

  71. 71.

    See Annex IV. Cf The Rewa [2012] EWCA Civ 153; [2012] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 510.

  72. 72.

    The Elli and the Frixos [2008] EWCA Civ 584; [2008] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 119.

  73. 73.

    At [24]; [26].

  74. 74.

    It has been said that “there is no positive condition of the vessel recognized by the law to satisfy the warranty of seaworthiness”: Knill v Hooper (1857) 2 H & N 277, 283.

  75. 75.

    Lord Esher MR has stated that the vessel must be “… in a condition to bear all the ordinary vicissitudes of the voyage …”: Thin v Richards & Co [1892] 2 QB 141, 143.

  76. 76.

    The Fjord Wind [2000] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 191, [18].

  77. 77.

    FC Bradley & Sons Ltd v Federal Steam Navigation Co Ltd (1926) 24 Ll LR 446, 458; Charles Brown & Co v Nitrate Producers Steamship Co (1937) 58 Ll LR 188, 190.

  78. 78.

    The Vortigern [1899] P 140.

  79. 79.

    See Stanton v Richardson (1875) 3 Asp MLC 23 (HL); Tattersall v The National Steamship Co Ltd (1884) 12 QBD 297, 300.

  80. 80.

    See The Good Friend [1984] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 586, 592.

  81. 81.

    The Portland Trader [1963] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 278, 280–281 (Dist Ct, Oregon).

  82. 82.

    Steel v State Line Steamship Co (1877) 3 App Cas 72. See also London Arbitration 2/2005, (2005) 659 LMLN 1.

  83. 83.

    At 90–91. Cf, however, Gilroy, Sons & Co v W R Price & Co [1893] AC 56, 64; The Schwan [1909] AC 450, 464.

  84. 84.

    In McFadden Brothers & Co v Blue Star Line Ltd [1905] 1 KB 697, 703 (Channell J).

  85. 85.

    (1877) 3 App Cas 72, 86.

  86. 86.

    Wiener & Co v Wilsons & Furness-Leyland Line Ltd (1910) 11 Asp MLC 413; Snia Societa di Navigazione Industria e Commercio v Suzuki & Co (1923) 17 Ll L Rep 78, 86.

  87. 87.

    Nelson Line (Liverpool) Ltd v James Nelson & Sons Ltd [1908] AC 16, 20.

  88. 88.

    Sleigh v Tyser [1900] 2 QB 333, 337–338 (Bigham J). See also (The Socol 3 [2010] EWHC 777 (Comm); [2010] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 221.

  89. 89.

    [1905] 1 KB 697, 706 (Channell J). See also The Derby [1985] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 325, 332.

  90. 90.

    Burges v Wickham (1863) 3 B & S 669, 693.

  91. 91.

    MDC Ltd v NV Zeevaart Maatschappij Beursstraat [1962] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 180, 186 (McNair J).

  92. 92.

    The Arianna [1987] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 376, 389.

  93. 93.

    There is no implied obligation that the ship must be seaworthy on the approach voyage to the port: The Nizeti [1960] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 132, 137.

  94. 94.

    The Rona (1884) 51 LT 28, 30–31.

  95. 95.

    McFadden v Blue Star Line [1905] 1 KB 697, 703.

  96. 96.

    Virginia Carolina Chemical Co v Norfolk & North American Steam Shipping Co [1912] 1 KB 229, 243–244 (Kennedy J).

  97. 97.

    Lines 15–21. See The Fjord Wind [2000] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 191.

  98. 98.

    London Arbitration 7/2000, (2000) 539 LMLN 3.

  99. 99.

    Northumbrian Shipping Co Ltd v E Timm & Son Ltd [1939] AC 397, 403–404.

  100. 100.

    [1899] P 140, 155; McFadden Brothers & Co v Blue Star Line Ltd [1905] 1 KB 697, 704.

  101. 101.

    Possibly also in liner trades where a ship calls at ports in advertised sequence. See Maxine Footwear Co Ltd v Canadian Government Merchant Marine Ltd [1959] AC 589 (PC), 604 (Lord Somervell): “The doctrine of stages had its anomalies and some important matters were never elucidated by authority”.

  102. 102.

    Thin v Richards & Co [1892] 2 QB 141.

  103. 103.

    The Nizeti [1960] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 132, 140.

  104. 104.

    New York & Cuba Mail Steamship Co v Eriksen & Christensen (1922) 10 Ll L Rep 772.

  105. 105.

    Thin v Richards & Co [1892] 2 QB 141, 143.

  106. 106.

    Walford de Baerdemaecker & Co v Galindez Bros (1897) 2 Com Cas 137.

  107. 107.

    Giertsen v Turnbull & Co 1908 SC 1101, 1110. It has been suggested that the shipowner’s obligation is to exercise due diligence before the start of each voyage (London Arbitration 24/1989, (1989) 259 LMLN 4) but this is yet to be confirmed in any reported case.

  108. 108.

    The Madeleine [1967] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 224; The Derby [1984] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 635.

  109. 109.

    Lines 21–24.

  110. 110.

    Line 22. “Readiness” here embraces the requirement that the vessel is “completely ready in all her holds so as to afford the merchant complete control of every portion of the ship available for cargo”: Groves, Maclean & Co v Volkart Bros (1884) Cab & El 309, 311 (Lopes J).

  111. 111.

    Ibid. The vessel must be “fit to commence her chartered enterprise, which consists of loading and sailing when loaded”: New York & Cuba Mail Steamship Co v Eriksen & Christensen (1922) 10 Ll L Rep 772, 773 (Greer J).

  112. 112.

    Lines 22–24.

  113. 113.

    Line 24.

  114. 114.

    An express warranty of seaworthiness: The Derby [1985] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 325, 331; 333; The Arianna [1987] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 376, 389–390.

  115. 115.

    Line 33.

  116. 116.

    Lines 33–35. Emphasis supplied. See The Arianna [1987] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 376.

  117. 117.

    Cl 6, line 82.

  118. 118.

    Cl 2(b), lines 40–44.

  119. 119.

    Line 40.

  120. 120.

    Lines 40–41.

  121. 121.

    [1987] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 376, 389–390.

  122. 122.

    Worms v Storey (1855) 11 Exch 427, 430; The Rona (1884) 5 Asp MLC 259, 261–262.

  123. 123.

    See, eg, The Cressington [1891] P 152 (exception of perils of the sea and negligence of the master applied).

  124. 124.

    (1884) 5 Asp MLC 259.

  125. 125.

    Phelps, James & Co v Hill [1891] 1 QB 605; J & E Kish v Charles Taylor Sons & Co [1912] AC 604. The vessel must not leave the port of refuge until again seaworthy: Worms v Storey (1855) 11 Exch 427.

  126. 126.

    Stanton v Richardson (1875) 3 Asp MLC 23 (HL), 24.

  127. 127.

    Also some voyage charterparties: Scott v Foley, Aikman & Co (1899) 5 Com Cas 53.

  128. 128.

    (1936) 54 Ll L Rep 341, 344–345 (Lord Roche); Snia Societa di Navigazione Industria e Commercio v Suzuki & Co (1924) 17 Ll L Rep 78, 88.

  129. 129.

    Cl 6, lines 81–82 (NYPE 93); cl 6(a), lines 94–96 (NYPE 2015). This form of wording is almost exactly the same as in the Baltime (1939) form.

  130. 130.

    Cl 2, lines 11–14.

  131. 131.

    Delaware North Marine Experience Pty Ltd v The Ship “Eye-Spy” [2017] FCA 708; [2017] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 463.

  132. 132.

    At [256].

  133. 133.

    At [264].

  134. 134.

    Ibid [ie under cl 2, lines 10–13, of Barecon 89 (now cl 3 of Barecon 2001)].

  135. 135.

    See cl 3(a), lines 18–21.

  136. 136.

    Cl 3(b), lines 26–29.

  137. 137.

    See New York & Cuba Mail Steamship Co v Eriksen & Christensen (1922) 10 Ll L Rep 772, 773.

  138. 138.

    Issued on 12 December 2017. See “New Barecon 2017 calculates future trends”, https://www.bimco.org/news/press-releases/barecon, last accessed 2017/12/12.

  139. 139.

    Cl 3(a), line 28. Cf the wording in the NYPE 2015 clause.

  140. 140.

    Cl 3(b), lines 34–35.

  141. 141.

    See cl 12(a), lines 140–143.

  142. 142.

    See Clarke, M.: Aspects of the Hague Rules. Martinus Nijhoff, The Hague, 203; Chacón, V.: The Due Diligence in Maritime Transportation in the Technological Era. Springer, Cham.

  143. 143.

    Maxine Footwear Co Ltd v Canadian Government Merchant Marine Ltd [1959] AC 589 (PC), 603; The mv Devon [2012] EWHC 3747 (Comm), [43].

  144. 144.

    W Angliss & Co (Australia) Pty Ltd v P & O Steam Navigation Co [1927] 2 KB 456, 463; The Kriti Rex [1996] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 171, 185.

  145. 145.

    Leesh River Tea Co Ltd v British India Steam Navigation Co Ltd [1967] 2 QB 250, 274–275 (upholding [1966] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 450, 457).

  146. 146.

    See, eg, Carriage of Goods by Sea Act 1971, c 19, s 3.

  147. 147.

    The Eurasian Dream [2002] EWHC 118 (Comm); [2002] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 719, [155].

  148. 148.

    Ibid.

  149. 149.

    Maxine Footwear Co Ltd v Canadian Government Merchant Marine Ltd [1959] AC 589 (PC), 602–603.

  150. 150.

    The Muncaster Castle [1961] AC 807, 844 (overruling [1959] 1 QB 74; [1960] 1 QB 536 (CA)).

  151. 151.

    The Fjord Wind [2000] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 191, 199.

  152. 152.

    This would not extend further to responsibility for manufacturers, exporters, or shippers: The Kapitan Sakharov [2000] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 255, 272.

  153. 153.

    The Muncaster Castle [1961] AC 807, 867.

  154. 154.

    The Happy Ranger [2006] EWHC 122 (Comm); [2006] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 649, [37].

  155. 155.

    W Angliss and Co (Australia) Pty Ltd v Peninsular and Oriental Steam Navigation Co [1927] 2 KB 456, 461.

  156. 156.

    Ibid.

  157. 157.

    The Happy Ranger [2006] EWHC 122 (Comm); [2006] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 649.

  158. 158.

    At [62].

  159. 159.

    The Aquacharm [1982] 1 WLR 119; The Benlawers [1989] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 51, 60.

  160. 160.

    See Article V. This ensures that “the shipowner retains absolute freedom to conclude charter parties on the terms he wishes and that he can insert whatever clauses he likes, as in the past …”: Carver on Bills of Lading (n 2), para 9–310.

  161. 161.

    Examples are: Asbatankvoy, cl 20(b)(i); NYPE 1946, cl 24; NYPE 93, cl 31(a), lines 318-328; NYPE 2015, cl 33(a), lines 526–538.

  162. 162.

    For fuller consideration, see Carver on Charterparties (n 2), para 5-009.

  163. 163.

    [1959] AC 133.

  164. 164.

    As contained in the US Carriage of Goods by Sea Act 1936.

  165. 165.

    [1959] AC 133, 154; The Satya Kailash and Oceanic Amity [1984] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 588, 593–594; The Eternity [2008] EWHC 2480 (Comm); [2009] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 107, [19].

  166. 166.

    The Aliakmon Progress [1978] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 499, 501.

  167. 167.

    The Hermosa [1980] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 638, 647–648.

  168. 168.

    At 648; London Arbitration 24/1989, (1989) 259 LMLN 4.

  169. 169.

    See www.imo.org, last accessed 2017/12/7.

  170. 170.

    Carey (n 50).

  171. 171.

    See, eg, Clayton, R.: Outlook 2018: Prologue of a new era. Lloyd’s List, 2017/11/29.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Centre for Maritime Law, National University of Singapore, 469G Bukit Timah Road, Singapore, 259776, Singapore

    Stephen Girvin

Authors
  1. Stephen Girvin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Stephen Girvin .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Technological University of Panama, Panama City, Panama

    Adán Vega Sáenz

  2. Federal Fluminense University, Volta Redonda, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil

    Newton Narciso Pereira

  3. Escola Politécnica Superior, Universidade da Coruña, Ferrol, A Coruña, Spain

    Luis Manuel Carral Couce

  4. Escola Politécnica Superior, Universidade da Coruña, Ferrol, A Coruña, Spain

    José Angel Fraguela Formoso

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2019 Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature

About this paper

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this paper

Girvin, S. (2019). The Obligation of Seaworthiness: Shipowner and Charterer. In: Vega Sáenz, A., Pereira, N., Carral Couce, L., Fraguela Formoso, J. (eds) Proceedings of the 25th Pan-American Conference of Naval Engineering—COPINAVAL. COPINAVAL 2017. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-89812-4_37

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-89812-4_37

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-319-89811-7

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-319-89812-4

  • eBook Packages: EngineeringEngineering (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation