Return to site

Maritime Law Essay

 Owners of the “M. V Containerâ€� claimed her damage cargo hold No 1. Cargo owner of fertilizer claimed to owner against delays. 4. general average vs. particular average (a) General average is incurred for the benefit of all interests but the particular average is in connection with just one of the many interests. b) General average is always voluntary and intentional but the particular average is an accidental or unexpected calamities. (c) General average is shared by all those who have benefited by the general average act. Particular average is paid by the insurer. (d) General average may include expenditure and sacrifice along with loss, whereas the particular average results from a loss or damage. 5.Conditions implying General Average In order for an act of sacrifice or expenditure to be considered an act of general average, six conditions must prevail. a) Common Maritime Adventure – More than one party must be involved in the adventure so as to be ‘common’ (shipowner, cargo owner). (b) Real and Common Danger – all parties must have been actually benefited by the sacrifice due to a peril that endangers the adventure. (c) Extraordinary – loss must be distinguished from ordinary loss because ordinary loss is not allowed for general average contributions. (d) Intentional – decisions must be made and the loss must be voluntary. (e) Reasonableness – unreasonable and unnecessary sacrifice or expenditure is not valid. f) Success – the sacrificial actions must be able to save the property involved in a common maritime adventure from a particular danger. Where the ship and cargo is totally destroyed altogether, there will be no question of general average. 6. CASE ANALYSIS In the case of “Never Struckâ€� and “M. V Containerâ€�, it was due to the negligence of 3rd officer in “M. V Containerâ€� who did not condone to Prevention of Collision Regulations 1972 which is a breach of international law, causing the two vessels to collide. Although “Never Struckâ€� did have a fault of its own, it did not however breach the international law of sea navigations.In applying the rules of Prevention of Collision Regulations 1972, Part A, section 2(a) and section 2(b), referred to as the “General Prudentialâ€� rule and provides for non-conformance with stated rules in order to prevent a collision, because what is paramount is to avoid or minimize the damaging effects of a collision, as opposed to blindly following the rules to the letter. The overall intent is to minimize actual collision taking place rather than rule compliance in itself. Due to negligence on the part of “M. V Containerâ€� she will not be able to claim against “Never Struckâ€� for the repairs of the cargo hold No 1.The cargo loss in the cargo hold No 1 which was lost due to the accident may however bring about an action in tort. If there was any further loss of cargo which was jettisoned in order to save the ship or expenses incurred after the collision in order to save the adventure may be liable for general average. As for “Never Struckâ€�, the cargo owner may claim either “Never Struckâ€� or “M. V Containerâ€� against delays. However it should and would not be considered in general average claims. Same as for the case of “M. V Containerâ€�, the cargo loss which was lost due to the accident may however bring about an action in tort.If there was any further loss of cargo which was jettisoned in order to save the ship or expenses incurred after the collision in order to save the adventure may be liable for general average. 7. CONCLUSION As a conclusion, collisions may lead to a series of claims and actions. These series of events may bring about the application a number of acts. It is important though to understand that General Average only exist if the act of sacrifice or expenditure is voluntary in order to save a common adventure from total loss at sea.