Добавил:
Опубликованный материал нарушает ваши авторские права? Сообщите нам.
Вуз: Предмет: Файл:
Carr I., Stone P. International Trade Law 2014-1.pdf
Скачиваний:
39
Добавлен:
20.12.2022
Размер:
6.5 Mб
Скачать

FURTHER READING

| 429

Clause 1.3 provides cover for total loss of any package washed overboard or dropped while loading onto, or unloading from, the vessel or craft.

Under cll 1.2 and 1.3, the causal requirement is one of proximate causation.123

Institute Cargo Clauses (C)

Under this set of Cargo Clauses, cover available under cll 1.1.6, 1.2.3 and 1.3 of Institute Cargo Clauses (B) is not available. Further, cover under cl 2.2 of Institute Cargo Clauses (C) is restricted to jettison and does not extend to washing overboard as in Institute Cargo Clauses (B).

The Institute Cargo Clauses (A), (B) and (C), as stated earlier, do not include war risks or strike risks.

Should the cargo interest wish to obtain cover for war or strikes, specialised trade terms, such as Institute War Clauses (Cargo) and Institute Strikes Clauses (Cargo), are available.

Conclusion

So far, the obligations and liabilities of the parties to a bill of lading and marine insurance policy – the two documents that play a central role in CIF contracts – have been considered. Nothing, however, has been said about the ways in which the buyer pays the seller for the goods. Chapter 1 mentioned in passing that payment normally takes place against the tender of documents. Chapter 15, therefore, deals with the different payment mechanisms and focuses on letters of credit – the most popular method of payment in international sales since they are widely perceived as a secure method of payment due to the involvement of a bank – a reliable third party.

Further reading

Bennett, ‘The role of the slip in marine insurance law’ [1994] LMCLQ 94. Bennett, The Law of Marine Insurance, 2006, OUP.

Brooke, ‘Materiality in insurance contracts’ [1985] LMCLQ 437.

Clarke, Law of Insurance Contracts, 5th edn 2006, Informa Maritime and Transport. Clarke, ‘Recession: inducement and good faith’ [2004] CLJ 1.

Condon, ‘The making of the marine insurance contract: a comparison of English and US law’ [1986] LMCLQ 484.

Diamond, ‘The law of insurance – has it a future?’ [1986] LMCLQ 25. Forte, ‘The materiality test in insurance’ [1993] LMCLQ 557. George, ‘The new Institute Cargo Clauses’ [1986] LMCLQ 438.

Hasson, ‘Subrogation in insurance law – a critical evaluation’ (1985) 5 OJLS 416. Hodges, Cases and Materials on Marine Insurance Law, 1999, Cavendish Publishing. Koh, ‘Insurable risks and the new Institute Cargo Clauses’ [1988] JMLC 287.

Lloyd-Bostock, ‘The ordinary man and the psychology of attributing causes and responsibility’ (1979) 42 MLR 143.

McGee, ‘The proposer’s duty of utmost good faith after Pine Top’ (1995) 4 Insurance Law and Practice 95.

123 See ‘Doctrine of proximate causation’, above.

430 |

MARINE INSURANCE

McKellar, ‘Marine insurance – an ancient art that meets modern demands’ [1986] Victoria University of Wellington LR 16.

Merkin, Marine Insurance Legislation, 3rd edn, 2005, Informa Professional. Mustill, ‘Fault and marine losses’ [1988] LMCLQ 310.

O’May, ‘The new marine policy and Institute Clauses’ [1985] LMCLQ 191. O’May, ‘Marine insurance law: can the lawyers be trusted?’ [1987] LMCLQ 29.

Schoenbaum, ‘The duty of utmost good faith in marine insurance law: a comparative analysis of American and English law’ (1998) 29 JMLC 1.

Soyer, Warranties in Marine Insurance, 2nd edn, 2005, Cavendish Publishing. Stone, ‘The proper law of a marine insurance policy’ [1984] LMCLQ 438.

Соседние файлы в предмете Коммерческое право