Fuji Harvest v Australasian Shipping Company Ltd [2013] The…

Question Answered step-by-step Fuji Harvest v Australasian Shipping Company Ltd [2013] The… Fuji Harvest v Australasian Shipping Company Ltd [2013]The Plaintiff claimed damages for negligence and breach of duty on the part of defendants in the carriage of bananas by the vessel “Lotus” from Fuji to Australia. There was a bill of lading relating to this cargo issued by the Defendant. The largest portion of the cargo was placed in the insulating chamber, for which a higher rate of freight was charged. The part of the cargo carried outside of the insulating chamber arrived in good condition, but that in the insulating chamber became so damaged that part of it had to be destroyed and part fetched very low prices.The Plaintiff suffered from a loss on the shipment amounted to US$ 154,000, who alleged that the insulating machinery on this voyage was incapable of doing, and did not do, its work efficiently, and that the fruit was, in consequence, damaged. The Defendant said they did all that it was their duty to do in respect of the shipment and that the loss was due to perils of the sea and, or in the alternative, to inherent vice in the bananas.By Hague-Visby Rules Article III, there is, in every bill of lading, an implied warranty that the ship shall be, at the beginning of the voyage, seaworthy in all respects; and that if the ship is so seaworthy, the owner shall not be liable for damage to the goods resulting from perils of the sea and inherent vice. “Seaworthiness” should not be limited to mere fitness to encounter sea perils, but would also include the fitness of the machinery controlling the insulating chamber. In the statement of defense, the Defendant raised a point which must be dealt with before the merits of the case could be considered. They contended that the Plaintiff could not bring this action because the claim was not notified within 7 days of the arrival of the “Lotus” at the port of discharge, as required by clause 17 of the bill of lading. If this clause was applicable, the contention was good and the Plaintiff would be out of Court.The Plaintiff contended that it was not applicable where the damage was due to the unseaworthiness of the ship. This led to the question, “What was the contract between the parties”? The contract, so far as it is expressed, is contained in the bill of lading. An examination of the bill of lading showed that it contained no stipulation as to seaworthiness. The question then, was whether the condition as to the notice applied where the damage arose through a breach of the implied warranty of seaworthiness. If the Court agreed with the Plaintiff with regard to the malfunctioning of the insulating chamber at the commencement of the voyage, while the fact that the portion of the cargo shipped outside of the insulating chamber arrived in good order necessarily evidenced the good carrying condition of the cargo, would you as the Judge deny the Plaintiff’s claim due to their less than 7 days’ insufficient claim notification as alleged by the Defendant? Why or why not? (10 marks) Engineering & Technology Industrial Engineering Supply Chain Management SCM 4302 Share QuestionEmailCopy link Comments (0)