Casework 1.

A ro ro carrier loaded cars in Japan, and the B/L stated that 5000 cars (Toyota Corolla) were to be shipped to Singapore. Counting the cars driven onto the vessel, the ships crew found that only 4980 cars had been delivered by the shipper. The Master decided to clause the B/L subject to the shortage. However, this was not accepted by the shipper, as he needed a clean B/L for finance purposes. He suggested to the Master that he would issue a Letter of Indemnity against a clean B/L. He also promised that the cargo would not be sold during the voyage. Also, the shipper insinuated that if the Master did not accept this, he might choose a different carrier for his next shipment. a) b) 2. M/S Trym transported sugar from Shanghai to Ho Chi Minh in August 2006. The sugar was to be used for chocolate production and was thus fine and of a high quality. The sugar was packed by the shipper in Big Bags, a type of bag that was commonly used for this type of transport. The shipment consisted of a total of 500 bags. Each bag weighted 750 kilos. It was raining slightly at the port of loading, bit the Master decided to carry on as the ship was already late according to schedule. He assumed the big bags were solid enough to keep the rain out. A clean on board B/L was issued when loading was completed. Upon arrival in Ho Chi Minh, it was noted that several bags appeared wet. The bags were transported to the consignee`s terminal and opened. It was noted that the sugar was lumpy and thus not fit for chocolate production. 31 bags were affected. Further 3 bags contained brown sugar instead of the white sugar as indicated in the B/L. The consignees notified the carrier and a joint survey was arranged. The survey showed that 32 bags had sustained water damage and the loss was estimated at 110.000,- NOK. The consignee claimed compensation from the carrier. The carrier denied liability and stated that the cause of the loss was insufficient packing of the cargo. He claimed the big bags should have had a plastic lining, preventing water from entering. He also claimed that the shipper had not informed him that the bags could not be exposed to water. He also alleged that any claim should be subject to American Law, as it was a Clause Paramount in the B/Lstating that American Law should apply. The consignee claimed that the Norwegian Maritime Code should apply. He also claimed that he was entitled to limit his liability. Discuss and solve the claim according to applicable laws. What would you advice the Master to do in this case? What would be the possible consequences of either clausing the B/L or not clausing the B/L?