ForInvestmentLawkeyanswersofDecember2012pleasevisittheblogoftheconcernedProfessorSri.KrishnaSwamy,thedetailsofwhichareasfollows:http://wordpress.com/ USER ID: krishnaswamy1928 PASSWORD: rajamsk1928

NATIONAL LAW SCHOOL OF INDIA UNIVERSITY, BANGALORE

MBL PART II SUPPLEMENTARY EXAMINATION (DEC) 2012

Law Relating To Foreign Trade Answer Keys Answer any five. All questions carry equal marks: (5x20=100)

1. Definea billof lading. Discussthecharacteristicsofabillof ladingundertheHagueRules

andundertheHamburgRules.A billof lading,amongothers, canbedefinedasa contractof carriagebetween thecarrierandtheconsigneeortheendorsee.However,itcannotbeconstruedascontractof carriage in itself. Generally bills of lading issued are subject to internationalconventionssuchas theHagueRulesand theHamburg rules. Abillof ladingexhibitsthreeprincipalcharacteristicsthat:(1) it isareceiptforreceivingthegoods;(2) it isanevidenceofcontractofcarriage;and(3)itisadocumentoftitle.TheHagueRulesrequires forthe inclusionofastatement inthebillof ladingthatthecontractof carriagedescribed in thebillof lading is subject to theHagueRules. TheHambargRules,ontheotherhand,dealswiththebillofladinginanelaboratemanner,includingtheinformations/contentsofbilloflading(Article15).

2. CriticallyevaluatetheconceptofseaworthinessintheCarriageofGoodsbySeaAct,1925.Thecarrierisrequiredtoprovideseaworthyvesseltotransportgoodsbysea.Therefore,theconceptofseaworthinessplaysacentralroleintheliabilityregimeprovidedbytheHagueRules,1923.Theconceptofseaworthinessgenerallymeanstheabilityoftheshiptocompletethevoyagestipulatedbythecontractofcarriage.Fallswithintheambitofthisconcept istheconceptofcargoworthinessoftheship.The latterexpressionreferstothekindoffacilitytobeprovidedbythecarriertotransportspecifictypeofgoods.Forexample,providingproperrefrigerationsystemincaseofperishablegoods.Besides,thisobligationisnonderogableone.InthecaseofFiona,thecourtheldthatthecarriercouldnotrelyonArticleIV(6),righttoanindemnity,becausethecarrierdidnotprovideaseaworthyvessel.Inthatcaseacargo of oil exploded as a result of contaminationwith residues of cargo previouslycarried.

3. AmultimodaltransportoperatorregisteredinIndiaenteredintoacontractwithaconsignertotransportgoodsfromChennaitoCapeTown,SouthAfrica.Thecargowasdamagedinthecourse of carriage by sea due to mishandling by the crew. Discuss the liability of themultimodal transportoperatorunder theMultimodalTransportationofGoodsActand theCarriageofGoodsbySeaAct,1925.UndertheMultimodalTransportationofGoodsAct,1993MTOcansuccessfullypleadandexempthimself from incurring liability if it ispossible forhimtodosounderthespecificregimeapplicabletothecaseathand.Ofcourse,itmustbeapparentfromthefacts that the damage/loss suffered during specific leg of the transportation.Eg.Maritimetransportating.

Inthe famous GosseMillardCasetheHouseofLardsheldthatthenegligentactwasprimarilyaneglectofthecargo,andnotaneglectoftheshipwhichaffectedthecargo.Hence,thecarrierwasheldliable.ThecarrierisliablebothundertheMTGA1993andCOGSA,1925.

4. DistinguishtheWarsawConvention,1929fromtheWarsawConventionasamendedbytheHagueProtocol,1955withregardtotheliabilityoftheaircarrier.The amended Warsaw Convention (the Hague Protocol), 1955 stands distinct withregard to the liability of the air carrier in three respect: first, it has increased themaximum compensatorydamages from 1,25,000 Francs to 2,50,000 Fracs in caseofpersonalinjurysustainedbyapassengerordeathofapassengerduringanaircarriage;second,ithasdoneawaywithnegligentpilotage;and(3)thelanguageused,damageresultedfromanactoromissionofthecarrier,hisservantsoragents,donewithintenttocausedamageorrecklesslyandwithknowledgethatdamagewouldprobablyresultismoreclearthanthelanguageofwillfulmisconductintherespectiveprovisionoftheWarsawConvention.

5. Compare the respective legal positions with regard to the doctrine of frustration ofcontractsintheIndianSaleofGoodsActandtheViennaConventiononInternationalSaleofGoods(CISG),1980.Thedoctrinesof frustrationofcontractand forcemajeurestanddistinctlydifferentwithrespecttothelegaleffectofeconomichardship.TheCISG,inArt.79takesalenientview of the economic situation. Here, the failure of Awas due to an impedimentbeyonditscontrol.Hence,Awillnotbeliable.TheCommonLawfollowsthedoctrineoffrustrationofcontractunderwhichtheissueiswhether the contract is physically or legally possible to perform, though itwouldimposeunduehardshipontheseller.So,Awillbeheldliable.

6. a)DiscussthescopeoftheapplicabilityoftheNewYorkConvention,1958inIndia.TheIndianimplementingonlegislation,ArtIIoftheArbitrationandConciliationAct,1996, of the New York Convention mandates the following for the scope ofapplicationoftheNewYorkConventioninIndia: thatthearbitralawardmusthavebeenrenderedoutsideIndia; thecountrywhereintheawardwasmademustbethereciprocalcountry; theawardrenderedmustbe inpursuanceofawrittenagreementbetweenthe

partiesandmustalsobearbitrableaspertheIndianLawandpublicpolicy;and theawardisbasedonacontractconsideredascommercialinIndia.

b) A from India entered into a technical collaboration agreementwith B from theU.S. Thecontract contained an arbitration clause; the samewas referred to arbitration in London inaccordancewith the ICCArbitration rules. Theawardwentagainst A. When B sought toenforce the award in India, a objected to the enforcement on the ground that the saidcontractwasnotcommercialundertheIndianLaw.Decidethecase.

InKamanicase, theBombayHighCourtwasof theopinion that technicalandadvisoryservicecontractdidnotqualifyascommercialcontract. Thisreasoningwasfollowed intheIndianOrganiccasebythesamecourt. However,theIndianSupremeCourt inRMInvestment case favored a more flexible and broad interpretation of the wordCommercial based on the general legal perceptions in India (Art.301 of the IndianConstitution)andtheexplanationtothewordCommercialintheUNCITRALModelLawonInternationalCommercialArbitration,1985(footnotetoArt.I)

7. Writeshortnoteson:a) Nachfristprinciple;

Nachfristprinciple,havingcivil laworigin,providesanautomaticextensionoftimeforapartyforabreachofcommercialcontract. Thisprinciplehasbeenechoed inthe Vienna convention on International Sale of Goods, 1980. The breach inquestion,however,shouldnotbeafundamentalbreach.

b) LexarbitriThe principle simply means the law applicable to the conduct of arbitralproceedings.Itisquitepossibleforthepartiestochooseanationallawtogovernthe arbitration proceedings which is not the law of the country in which thearbitrationisheld.