“The implied undertaking is that ship shall, when the voyage begins, be seaworthy for the

particular voyage and for the cargo carried.” Source : (Payne & Ivamy’s Carriage of Goods
by Sea, p.15)

The above statement is about implied obligation to provide a seaworthy vessel. The
requirement for the ship owner to provide a seaworthy vessel comprises of two fold obligation
which is the vessel must be suitably manned and equipped to meet the ordinary perils likely to
be encountered while performing the services required of it and the cargoworthiness of the
vessel. The vessel are unseaworthy when it has defective engine, defective of compass, the
deck cargo is stowed in such a way as to render the vessel unstable, the ship owner employs an
incompetent engineer or other officer, the inadequate bunker are taken on board for the voyage
and the documentation for the voyage is inadequate. While, the vessel is not cargoworthiness
when the vessel’s hold need fumigating or cleaning before in a fit state to receive cargo, the
frozen meat was to be shipped and there was a defect in the vessel’s refrigeration plant and the
pumps were inadequate to drain surplus water from the cargo. At the first voyage, obligation
is absolute to test the seaworthiness of the vessel. The owner of the ship cannot say that he did
not know the existence of the defect. He must make sure the condition of the vessel and
equipment are safe to use during the voyage.

Unseaworthy of The Vessel

The vessel is unseaworthy when it have defective engine. Based on the case of Hong Kong Fir
Shipping Co. v Kawasaki [1982] Q.B 26, HKFS agreed to let Hong Kong Fir on two years’
time-charter to Kawasaki on December 1956. On 13 February 1957, the vessel was delivered
at Liverpool. Within two months, she was expected to reach Osaka, Japan by going through
Newport Mews, Virginia, and then through the Panama Canal. During the journey, she was
under repair for five weeks and the expenses is £21, 400. When she arrive Osaka on 25 May,
an extra £37, 500 was spent on repairs lasting 15 weeks. Kawasaki do not accept the charter.
HKFS accepted the refusal and claimed the damages. Court of Appeal held that, the ship was
not suitable for ordinary cargo service when delivered, because the staff of engine room was
not competent and not adequate and it became apparent when during the journey there are a lot
of damage that need to repair. It is because they did not make sure the seaworthy of the vessel

1
before the voyage. The vessel was unseaworthy by reason of this inefficiency in the engine
room.

The others cases that related is The Kriti Rex [1996] 2 Lloyd's Rep 171. The Kriti Rex
[1996] 2 Lloyd's Rep 171. REL sub chartered the vessel to Fyffes from Big Creek in Belize,
Puerto Cortes in Honduras and Manzanillo in the Dominican Republic to Portsmouth and
Zeebrugge to carry bananas. The owners chartered the vessel to REL on a three year Baltime
form charterparty combines the most important the US clause. The vessel loaded 16,530 boxes
of bananas at Manzanillo and sailed to Santo Toma's, Guatemala. The engine broke down
during the voyage. The vessel went to Puerto Corte's as a port of protection and the master
declared general average. Fyffes had to make alternative arrangements of the bananas
transplanting in Santo Toma's and because of downturn in bananas condition had gone up
eventually donated them to the Honduran Red Cross. Sales are unlikely because no local market
for bananas and bananas cannot be transported to the European market. Fyffes claimed
damages to REL for violating of art III, r.1 of the Hague-Visby Rules to exercise due diligence
to make the vessel seaworthy and for fail to dismantle a vessel at Santo Tomas and Big Creek.
Caribbean Gold, holder of bills of lading in respect of the Manzanillo bananas claimed damages
for non-delivery due to unseaworthiness caused by a failure to carry out due diligence before
loading the vessel. REL in turn asks for damages to any liability from the owners.

The court held that fine particulate matter in lubricating oil caused the main bearing
failure of engine. The vessel was unseaworthy at the start of the voyage from Zeebrugge to
Manzanillo. The engine was known by the owners have a lot of sludge in the sump as
evidenced by a high frequency of filter turbine made before the voyage. The presence of
particulate matter will be encountered by independent analysis on a regular basis. A standard
procedure not run by the owners. REL was held liable to Fyffes on the basis of unseaworthiness
for losses incurred by not loading at Santo Toma's and Big Creek or alternatively on the basis
of a failure to proceed with reasonable dispatch to these ports. Caribbean Gold's claim against
the owners for damages for loss of cargo caused by unseaworthiness also succeeded. REL in
turn recovered part of the damages paid to Fyffes, from the owners under the indemnity.

The case of National Trading Corporation LTD. v Hugget [1999] FJHC 6;

Hba0011j.98s (19 February 1999) is about the seaworthiness of the charter parties which is
implied warranty of seaworthiness at the commencement of the voyage. The boat owner must
repay charterer for repairs. The charterer who is the first defendant was held to be liable to the

2
plaintiff for the repairs to the boat engine. The primary defendant was to be repaid by the second
defendant, the proprietor of the vessel. The vessel's engine had broken down and must be towed
in while on the charter. The appeal was dismissed. Therefore, the decision is the ordinary rule
which is an implied warranty of seaworthiness at the commencement of the voyage. There was
nothing in the charter that limits the rule. The fault in the engine which caused break-down
existed. The break-down existed when the ship began and the vessel was not fit for the voyage.

Defective compass is also include as the unseaworthy of the vessel. This principle can
be seen in the case of Patterson Steamships Ltd v Robin Hood Mills (1937) 58 LI.L.R 33. In
this case, two months before the voyage, the compass has been installed in the ship. However,
the compass collision with the light house is about 5 degree more northerly although the master
adjusted the compass to the corresponding course of sailing. The vessel did not turn to the
desired course. The court found that Patterson Steamships Ltd, who is the owner of steamship
was responsible for the loss and damage suffered due to the defective compass because the
offense was caused by his party.

The third situation of the vessel become unseaworthy because when the deck cargo is
stowed in such a way as to render the vessel unstable. This situation of this unseaworthy can
be seen in the case of Kish v Taylor [1912] A.C 604. The master of a vessel load the cargo over
the limit that has been set. This situation effect the stability of the vessel and it cause the ship
obliged to deviate from her normal route to find the nearest port repairs. The decision to deviate
from the normal route was justifiable.

The other case that can be relate to the situation is the case of The Friso [1980] 1 Lloyd’s
Rep. 469. Plaintiffs are charged for loss and damage to their cargo. However, he stressed that
the losses and damages were not caused by the danger of the sea but because the ship owner
failed to ensure that the ship was eligible before and at the commencement of the cruise. The
court held that the real cause of damage and loss suffered by the plaintiff was not the weather
but the fact that Friso took an unusually heavy list to port. Friso was seaworthy at the beginning
of the voyage and that unseaworthiness was due to the failure to exercise due diligence to make
the ship seaworthy.

The ship owner employs an incompetent engineer or other officer also include in the
obligation of the unseaworthy. In the case The Makedonia [1962] 3 W.L.R 343, the cargo
owner has taken action against the owner of the ship's vessel and the name of the vessel is
Macedonia. Macedonia has experienced damage during his journey from Balboa to UK. This

3
has caused his not to move as usual and was forced to get help. The plaintiff who is the owner
of the cargo claims and wishes to recover damages from the defendant who is the owner of the
steamship, against the loss suffered. The court found that the ship was not properly manned
because of the inefficiency of the engineers. Therefore, the vessel was unseaworthy, and the
plaintiffs are entitled to recover the payment because the owner of the cargo failed to see the
engineers were properly instructed or experienced in the use the oil and ballast lines properly.

The second case that can be refer for that principle is the case of The Farrandoc [1967]
2 Lloyd’s Rep 276. The cargo of grain that own by the plaintif was carried in defendant’s vessel
Farrandoc, from Kingston to Montreal. At Montreal, the second engineers, H, opened wrong
valve during pumping operations. Effect of the action, the water entered hold and damaging
the cargo. H has been charged by the plaintiff for his incompetence in carrying out his duties,
where the defendant fails to demonstrate his efficiency, reliability or normally in managing the
vessel's engine room piping and machinery and that defendant had no plan of engine-room
piping on Farrandoc. Based on the explanation, it was held that the defendant had failed to
make Farrandoc seaworthy. This caused damage to plaintiff’s cargo is due to the
unseaworthiness of Farrandoc. Defendant was liable.

The others cases that related the ship owner employs an incompetent engineer or other
officer is in case of The Star Sea [1995] 1 Lloyd's Rep 651. The effect of a breach of the
warranty of seaworthiness firmly establishes the importance of unseaworthiness in respect of
marine insurance. The policy is avoided and the assured cannot recover for his losses. Marine
Insurance Act 1906. s33 (3) A warranty is a condition which must be exactly complied with,
whether it be material to the risk or not. If it be not so complied with, then subject to any express
provision in the policy, the insurer is discharged from liability as from the date of the breach
of warranty, but without prejudice to any liability incurred by him before that date. Regarding
time policies there is no warranty of seaworthiness as such. The effect of the Marine Insurance
Act 1906 s39(5) is that if the vessel was unseaworthy when it sailed and the assured actually
or constructively knew of that unseaworthy state the insurer is not liable for loss due to
unseaworthiness. Losses caused by other perils covered by the policy may nonetheless be
recovered by the assured.

In case of The Star Sea, the vessel was destroyed by fire. The underwriters is against
the claim on the basis of unseaworthiness of the vessel with guaranteed consent. The chief
engineer had cut a pipe rendering the emergency fire pump useless. The master did not know

4
how to use the C02 fire suppression system effectively. The court held that the master was the
alter ego of the owner in the circumstances of the case and that his lack of knowledge of how
to extinguish the engine room fire amounted to unseaworthiness. Due to improper use of the
fire extinguishing system, the unseaworthiness of the vessel has resulted in increase of losses.
This additional loss could not be recovered under the policy. The losses incurred by the actions
of the master cannot be restored.

The underwriter failure to establish unseaworthiness does not guarantee its success. The
insured also needs to show that the loss was due to the insured risk. Although a preliminary
assumption of unseaworthiness is displaced, without any explanation of how the actual loss of
claim will fail. This was demonstrated clearly by The Marel [1994] 1 Lloyd's Rep 624. The
Marel sank off the coast of Spain. The crew claimed to have heard a bump followed by where
water began to enter the vessel. Ultrasonic tests had been performed on the shell plating prior
before sailing. Despite the failure of the underwriters to set up unseaworthiness, the owners
also failed to prove to the court that there was a collision or that the vessel was lost due to sea
hazard. It certainly cannot recover on the policy.

The second last of the incidence of obligation that make the unseaworthy is inadequate
bunker are taken on board for the voyage can be seen in the case of Mc Iver & Co. Ltd v Tate
steamers Ltd. M has rented a vessel for a voyage from Liverpool to River Plate and back to the
UK. Clause 2 of the Charter states that 'the Charter shall provide and pay for all coal'. When
the ship started his return journey from the River Plate to St. Vincent, chief engineer has made
a mistake in calculating the amount of coal in the bunker. Therefore, it is necessary to go to
Brazil to take coal and coal in Brazil is more expensive. This has caused delays. M’s claim for
damages was upheld by Kennedy J and the Court of Appeal.

The last principle is when the documentation for the voyage is inadequate. In the case
of The Madeleine [1967] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 224, the Madeleine has set the charter within 3 months
for world trade. The charterers have cancelled the agreement on the agreed date as the vessel
was not in good condition to be handed over. This is because he cannot show either a
‘deratisation certificate’ or ‘deratisation exemption certificate’. Due to the absence of the
certificate, under Indian Law, the vessel could not sail from the port of delivery (Calcutta) to
any port outside India. The charterer wants to cancel at 8.00 am on the cancellation date and
8.48 pm on the same day. The ship owners argued that the charterers had no right to cancel the

5
agreement and if they did have such a right, it had not been exercised timeously. The court
decided that the charterers were not guilty if they rejected the charter party.

Cargoworthiness of The Vessel

The ship owners is under an obligation to ensure that his ship is in a fit state to receive the
contractual cargo. Based on case of Rathbone Bros & Co v D MacIver Sons & Co. At the time
when the cargo was loaded, some of sheepskins were damaged by fresh water which escaped
from a pipe which was broken. In an action by plaintiff against the ship owners for the damage
to the sheepskins, defendants admitted the vessel was not fit to receive cargo at the time when
the sheepskins were loaded, and that reasonable means had not been taken to provide against
that unfitness, but defendants claimed exemption from liability under the terms of the bill of
lading. Court held the clause related to unseaworthiness did not create an additional exception,
but was a qualification of the prior exceptions; which included unfitness of the ship to receive
the cargo; and as the ship owners had not taken reasonable actions to provide against that
unfitness, ship owners were liable for the loss.

This requirement would not be satisfied when the vessel’s holds needed fumigating or
cleaning before being in a fit state to receive cargo. The example of case is Borthwick v
Elderslie Steamship Co. Frozen meat shipped for carriage from Melbourne to London arrived
tainted with carbolic acid, which the ship had been disinfected before shipment. The bill of
lading contained two exception clauses. The first exempted the from liability for damage to
goods of shipowner whether arising from a defect existing at the time of the shipment or not,
or from the neglect of the master or crew, or from any other cause whatsoever. The second
clause also exempted the shipowner from liability for damage from defects, etc, ‘if reasonable
means have been taken to provide against such defects and unseaworthiness’. Court held upon
the true construction of the bill of lading the generality of the first clause was qualified by the
second clause, and reasonable care not having been taken in cleansing the ship before shipment,
the shipowner was liable for the damage.

Next, is when frozen meat was to be shipped and there was a defect in the vessel’s
refrigeration plant. In cases of Rowson v Atlantic Transport Co, butter was shipped on board
defendants’ steamship at New York for carriage to London. The butter was carried in four out
of six insulated chambers forming part of refrigerating apparatus bolted to the ship and
connected with her engines, the other two chambers being used for the ship’s provisions during

6
the voyage. The butter was delivered in London in a damaged condition, resulting from the
negligence of one of the ship’s engineers in the management of the refrigerating apparatus,
whereby in the course of the voyage the temperature of the chambers was allowed to rise too
high. Held upon the facts, and especially as the refrigerating apparatus was used for the ship’s
provisions and not exclusively for the butter, the apparatus must be regarded as being part of
the ship and therefore the mismanagement of the apparatus was mismanagement of the ship,
so that the neglect to keep the chambers sufficiently cooled during the voyage was a fault or
error ‘in the management of vessel’, and defendants were consequently excused.

The Chase v Australasian United Steam Navigation Company Ltd [1919] FJSC 1;
[1919] 2 FLR 72 (1 January 1919); aff’d on appeal to Privy Council (17 June, 1921) LRAC
1921, vol. 2, 351. is about the unseaworthy of cargo that damaged as a result of malfunctioning
insulating. From Fuji to the Australia, the plaintiff shipped a lot of fruit. On arrival, the bananas
were damaged which had been carried in the insulating chamber of the vessel. As a result, the
plaintiff suffered damage. The plaintiff affirmed that the insulating machinery was not
operating properly. The bill of lading implied a warranty of seaworthiness and the plaintiffs
claimed for damages for carelessness and breach of obligation. By section 7(1) of Ordinance
No. 1 of 1926 each bill of lading has implied warranty that the ship is seaworthy at the start of
the voyage. To recover the plaintiff must satisfy the court that the fruit was delivered in great
condition and properly packed. To make the court satisfy, the defendant must make sure 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 ship. There is no stipulation
as to seaworthiness so that was implied by s.7 (1) that was contained in bill of lading. In that
case the express terms of the bill of lading did not have any significant bearing to the implied
contract.

The next situation is when the pumps were inadequate to drain surplus water from the
cargo. It can be seen in case of McFadden V. Blue Star Line. The defendants received on
board their ship for carriage certain goods of the plaintiff. After the goods were on board the
ship's engineer had occasion to open a sluice-door in a watertight bulkhead in the lower part of
the ship. He shortly afterwards shut the sluice-door, but failed to screw it down so closely as to
make it watertight. He subsequently proceeded to fill one of the ballast tanks, for which purpose
he opened a sea-cock in the ship's side to allow the water to flow in. The water from the sea-
cock to the ballast tank, passed through a valve-chest, the joint between the lid and body of
which had been packed in the ordinary way with cotton to make it watertight. This joint had

7
been remade shortly before the plaintiff's goods were put on board, and it had been imperfectly
done. When the tank was full the engineer screwed down the sea-cock but, owing to the
accidental presence of some hard substance, the screw-valve was prevented from bedding down
closely on to its seating and the sea-cock was left partially open, with the result that the
continued pressure of the water forced out the defective packing of the valve-chest, and the
water flowed through the joint down into the lower part of the ship, where it passed through
the sluice-door into the cargo hold and damaged the plaintiff's goods.

Held, that the defective fitting of the sea-cock and of the sluice-door, being defects
which came into existence after the plaintiff's goods were loaded, were not breaches of the
implied warranty of the fitness of the ship to receive the cargo; but that the defective packing
of the valve-chest, being an existing defect at the time of the loading of the goods, was a breach
of the warranty.

“The right to nominate a safe port to be legally straight forward concept, at least until its
inter-relationship with both the classification of contractual terms as conditions, innominate
term and warranties and the rules relating to frustration of contract are taken into account”

Safe ports should always be safe at a constant expectation, but safe will not be fixed. There are
several factors that need to be taken into consideration, the first situation the right to nominate
a safe port is politically issues of the nationality of the ship. The principle can be seen in the
case of the Madeleine [1967] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 224. In the case Madeleine was fixed on a 3
month’s time charter for world trading. The ‘deratisation certificate’ or ‘deratisation exemption
certificate’ are important to have it and to show to the charterers, without these certificate the
vessel was not in a condition in which she could properly be delivered because of the chartered
can cancel it with agreed cancellation date. In the absence of such certificate, under Indian
Law, the vessel could not sail from the port of delivery (Calcutta) to any port outside India.
The charterer purported to cancel at 8.00 a.m. on the cancellation date and 8.48 p.m. on the
same day. This creates an argument between ship owners even have the right, and the charterers
has the right to cancel. Overall, it's not that the reject charter is cruel by chaterers. In addition,
the Indian state has the right to require a secure port with a certificate deratisation.

Same with above cases, another cases can been seen in the Senkaku Island Japan but
focussing more on nationality island cases of diplomatic between Japan and China (Ministry
of Foreign Affair Japan, 2016). Which the illegal boat from China try enter to the Senkaku

8
Island without permission. It started from when one china people came to Senkaku Island for
fishing the others are following too. Not only Senkaku Island but other unhabitat islands too,
there are some issues of the China people lives on that islands are increasing. And when
Japanese Goverment annouce them for leaving that unhabitats island because is pass over the
Japan border. But, the China people still not leaving and said thats the Island is belong to China.
Because of this statement by china people give a people confuse who are the owners of that
islands. Even though, Japan have the right to reject or accept other ship which legally or
illegally that enter to the Japan border. The other country need to follow rule and have the
document to show it to Japan also Japan known as top 10 safe port in the world.

Japanese Territory were highlight ( MOFA 2016) Chinese goverment had said that
Senkaku Island had not belonging to any state though Japan claims from ancient times that
they have been an inherent part of the territory of China. According to Tadashi Ikeda 2013
during the Ming Dynasty, the islands were already discovered and recognized by imperial
envoys of China and that these islets belonged to Taiwan, which was included in China’s
maritime defense zone. However, nowadays China has recognized the Senkaku Islands as
Japanese territory because discovers of several facts documents including the facts of US
military had use the Senkaku Islands and give to Japan, "the Senkaku Islands, Yaeyama
District, Okinawa Prefecture, Empire of Japan" letter has proven that is sent on May 1920 by
consul of the Republic of China in Nagasaki, and lastly the "World Atlas Collection" published
by a Chinese map-publishing company in 1958 (reprinted in 1960) clearly identified the
Senkaku Islands as "the Senkaku Group of Islands" and treated them as part of Okinawa.

Futhermore, infomation about the possibility of petroleum resources on the East China
Sea which are Senkaku Island. Maybe thats the reason for China and Taiwan focused on the
Senkaku Island. About the possibility of existences of petroleum resources was conducted by
experts of Korea, Taiwan and Japan with the team of the United Nation Economic Commission
for Asia and the Far East ( ECAFE ). In addition, the ‘deratisation certificate’ or ‘deratisation
exemption certificate’ are important to have it and to show to the charterers, without these
certificate the vessel was not in a condition in which she could properly be delivered because
of the chartered can cancel it with agreed cancellation date like a Japan announce to China boat
to leave because they do not have any contract and they invaders enter without info to a Japan
Maritime Center or any party involved.

9
 The second situation a port may be safe even though it's often unsafe in terribly high
water. Devlin J. held, that it had been the giving of the order to travel to unsafe port that brought
about a breach of contract. On the facts found by the arbitrator, the charterer had noted of the
danger from ice that was concerned in ordering the Susses Oak to hamburg, and had given the
order to travel there, knowing of the danger. The master complied with the charterer’s order
and she was broken by ice within the approaches to the port. Metcalfe v Britannia work (1877)
2 Q.B.D. 423. Delivery was to be created at Taganrog, or the ocean of Azof. The charter-party
stipulated that the ship ought to go “to Taganrog, some close to as she might safely get and
deliver the shipment afloat”. In december, once the vessel arrived, the ocean of Azof was closed
by ice and wouldn't be open for 5 months. The ship owner wasn't entitled to freight by
delivering as close to as he might get. The question whether or not associate degree obstacle
was temporary or permanent wasn't most one among length of your time as of what may be
considered contemplated incidents of the voyage. That the ocean of Azof ought to be frozen at
that point of the year was considered affordable among the contemplation of the parties.

The obligation of the safe port are most important aspect of time and charter
agreements. This concept a major duty to nominate the safe port or warranty on safe port. The
safe port for warranty should not be regarded as a promise that the port a free from risks. The
charterer must undertaking the obligation safe port and have guarantee no danger to vessel at
port. In the first situation, the tenant has nomination of the port is safe. While arrive to the port
is safe and there is no problem. The instructions given at the time, are prospectively safe for
delivery of cargo to the port. Thereafter, a new situation arises that the port is insecure. This
principle can be seen in the case of Kodros Shipping Corpn v. Empresa Cubana de Fletes, The
Evia (No. 2) [1982] 2 Lloyd’s L.R. 307. In this case, the charterer vessel carry cement and load
from Cuba to Basrah. Then, on 1st July the vessel arrived in Basrah and wait until 20th August
because she was trapped in the Shatt-al-Arab waterway due to the outbreak of war between
Iraq and Iran. The owner of the ship claimed damages from the charterer. It was held that, the
House of Lords established that war happen after the vessel already arrived in Basrah. Before
happen the war, the charterer guarantee port is safety at time of nomination and unsafety was
due to unexpected after arrival. So, the charterer do not have secondary obligation to make new
nomination that time. Overall, the charterer would not have liable for any loss or damage from
extraordinary or unpredicted situation. Therefore, the charterer already fulfilled obligation a
safe port.

10
 The fourth situation, nature and the consequences of new hazards that have arisen
should be taken into account before the instructions are provided for sailing to the port. In
summary, the tenant can avoid the danger and leave the port. The tenants need to give further
instructions to other port nominates to protect the safety of ships and so on. To illustrate this
principle, it is relevant in the case Tape Berglund v. Montoro Shipping Corp. Ltd. The Dagmar
[1968] 2 Lloyad’s Rep.563. In this case, a ship has been directed to Cape Chat, Quebec for
shipping. During the unloading activity was carried out on the port, there were major winds
and waves occurring. The ship was caught in the port. The owner of the ship wants to claim
damages because it does not provide protection from the northern wind. The pier cannot deliver
any bad weather forecasts that will occur during the port. The tenants have failed to warn about
the risk of bad weather. The court held that the port was unsafe unless the vessel was warned
and receive weather information from shore and must rely on her own resources.

According to Paré Jr, A. M. (2014) says that the charter party on the voyage, it contains
a warranty to a tenant to assure the ship owner that the ship will be delivered to the port and
"safe" place. The guarantee is expressed in easy-to-understand language and trade with the safe
port. The seminal case defines and meaning of the safe port warranty is the English decision in
Leeds Shipping, Ltd. v. Société Francaise Bunge (The Eastern City). According to the case
Leeds Shipping, Lord Justice Sellers of the Court of Appeals said a port will not be safe. Port
safety should be seen on a properly operated vessel, equipped with security, without negligence
and using the specified navigational paths when making a backup.

This statement states that good and efficient voyage training as a component of security
against the safety of the vessel. Statement based on the definition by the court and the ship
owner in the case quoted by The Upeh. Besides that, there are many dangers and obstacles
involving ports in The Eastern City. The Court of Appeal makes review to determine whether
"the height of the EASTERN city due to non-compliance during the port or negligence by the
master and crew." Considerable to be done after the analysis of the offense and may specify
the value of damages. Finally, the court found no negligence in the Master's section. Therefore
the court decides that the damage arises due to unsafe ports being used. Furthermore, the
decision has long been named for the proposal that the claim under the Warranty on the wharf
and voyage may be "avoided" or otherwise decided on the port. The City of East said the
assurance was very limited and no violation would exist. While at the port, there is a situation
that is unsafe and can be avoided by doing good voyage training.

11
REFERENCES

Emily Tamkin (21 December, 2016). Japan Talks Tough on Senkaku Islands Dispute with
China. Retrieve from: http://foreignpolicy.com/2016/12/21/japan-talks-tough-on-
senkaku-islands-dispute-with-china/
Five years after nationalization of the Senkaku Islands. (11 September, 2017). Retrieve from:
https://www.japantimes.co.jp/opinion/2017/09/11/editorials/five-years-
nationalization-senkaku-islands/
Gaskell, N., Asariotis, R., & Baatz, a. Y. (2014). Bills of lading 2e: Law and contracts.
Retrieved from
https://books.google.com.my/books?id=CzorDwAAQBAJ&pg=PA275&lpg=PA275
&dq#v=onepage&q&f=false
Haselgrove, C. (1996). Spurin . Retrieved from The importance of seaworthiness:
http://www.nadr.co.uk/articles/published/shipping/Seaworthiness.pdf
Michael Hart (28 August, 2017). Japan’s Maritime Diplomacy Mission in Southeast Asia.
Retrieve from: https://thediplomat.com/2017/08/japans-maritime-diplomacy-mission-
in-southeast-asia/

Ministry of Foreign Affair Japan (2016). Japanese Territory : Senkaku Island 2016.
Retrieve from: http://www.mofa.go.jp/region/asia-paci/senkaku/qa_1010.html

Tadashi Ikeda (26 November, 2013). Senkaku history.

Retrieve from : https://thediplomat.com/2013/11/getting-senkaku-history-right/
Paré Jr, A. M. (2014). The Safe Port/Safe Berth Warranty and Comparative Fault. J. Mar. L.
& Com., 45, 141.

Pacific Islands Legal Information Institute. (2010, December 9). Retrieved from MARITIME
LAW VIRTUAL DATABASE: http://www.paclii.org/libraries/maritime-
law/summaries-of-important-cases/case-summaries-seaworthiness/index.html

Borthwick v Elderslie Steamship Co

Hong Kong Fir Shipping Co. v Kawasaki [1982] Q.B 26
Kish v Taylor [1912] A.C 604
Kodros Shipping Corpn v. Empresa Cubana de Fletes, The Evia (No. 2) [1982] 2 Lloyd’s
L.R. 307
Madeleine [1967] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 224
McFadden V. Blue Star Line
Mc Iver & Co. Ltd v Tate steamers Ltd
Metcalfe v Britannia work (1877) 2 Q.B.D. 423
National Trading Corporation LTD. v Hugget [1999] FJHC 6; Hba0011j.98s
(19 February 1999)
12
Patterson Steamships Ltd v Robin Hood Mills (1937) 58 LI.L.R 33
Rathbone Bros & Co v D MacIver Sons & Co [1903] 2 KB 378.
Rowson v Atlantic Transport Co
Senkaku Island Japan
Tape Berglund v. Montoro Shipping Corp. Ltd. The Dagmar [1968] 2 Lloyad’s Rep.563
The Chase v Australasian United Steam Navigation Company Ltd [1919]
The Kriti Rex [1996] 2 Lloyd's Rep 171
The Farrandoc [1967] 2 LThe Star Sea [1995] 1 Lloyd's Rep 651
The Friso [1980] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 469
The Makedonia [1962] 3 W.L.R 343
The Marel [1994] 1 Lloyd's Rep 624
The Madeleine [1967] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 224 loyd’s Rep 276

13