Shanghai Manufacture Imports Company (1839)

1456 Words6 Pages

In regards to the above case study it depicts a company Metal Works Ltd that sold three large aluminum contractions to Shanghai Manufacture Imports Company for 48,215.06 USD per piece. The first issue begins after the ship leaves the port where due to some welding on the deck of the ship a fire breaks out. One of the pieces of cargo on the deck of the ship suffers some damages. The second issue begins once the ship is in port and is in the process of unloading when another piece of cargo gets damaged due to the cargo at the time of unloading hitting against the hatch coaming of the ship swinging back and forth till it hits against the ships rails, breaks loose and falls to the floor. Shanghai Manufacture Imports Company has filed a claim for damages that amount to 13,720.11 USD for the fire damages and 48,215.06 USD for the cargo that fell against the carrier of the goods. The ship also suffered some damages that amount to 50,000 USD. …show more content…

The basic rules of whether a vessel is seen fit to sail is in section 39(1)-(4) of the Marine Insurance Act 1906.(Howard Bennet 1996) However it origins are from the case of Dixon vs Sadler (1839) with the warranty of Parker B.(Howard Benner 19696) Ship seaworthiness is divided into three subsections: physical worthiness, voyage worthiness and cargo worthiness. These are depicted in article 3.1 of the Hague and Hague-Visby Rules.(Shipping Law) In the case of Burgers v Wickham (1874) it was decided that seaworthiness has no absolute standard but reflects each vessel individually.(Howard Bennet

Open Document