Regulations which guide potential lack of clarity and dispute disagreement represent a positive modification of the market environment controls and hence the viability of Article 2 of the Hamburg Rule repealing the Hague-Visby Rules along that line (Edmonson, 2001; Emonson, 2009). Crr and Stone (2013) noted that there had been substantial misunderstandings under the vague Hague/Visby rules regarding which maritime transportation agreements were covered by the regulations. Aticles 1(b) and 2 of the original Hague/Visby Rules enforce the regulation of lading charges and other comparable documents of ownership.
6 indicates that the introduction of non-negotiable documents will only limit the application of the provisions minimally as a way to improve trade. Tere are a number of other limitations also captured in the body of law to eliminate the pre-existing ambiguity about the range of application of the original Rules (Antapases, La, &Røsæg, 2009). A McDorman (2006) said, i is arguable that while the regulations clearly aimed to omit non-negotiable payment documents, tey also were intended to prevent attempt by parties to circumvent the rules by fielding the in the non-negotiable receipts where there was no need to act that way.
Secifically, Aticle 2(1) (a) of the latest Hamburg Convention was particularly aimed to seal the loopholes which had been institutionalized by Article 10(b) of the Hague-Visby rules. Mreover, i what is seen as a substantial improvement of maritime transportation regulations, te Hamburg Rules introduced a whole new legislation under Article 2(1)(b), tat was lacking in the Hague-Visby Treaty. Te provision is applicable in all agreements where the loading port is found in a contracting member (Force, &Davies, 2006).
Kiatkowska (2013) noted that the letter and spirit of the provision was captured in the US statutory law, te Carriage of Goods by Sea Act, ad Hamburg Rules basically aimed to strengthen it by making it part of the international treaty for the first time in history. Te subsequent Article 2(1) (c) is well targeted at preventing parties to a contract from capitalizing on the freedom in choosing recipient ports to circumvent the Rules (Schelin, 2009). Dspite its effectiveness, te objectivity of the new provisions arguably questionable this clause is to be applied singly, i which case, i would imply that the repealing Hamburg Rules. ..
Please type your essay title, choose your document type, enter your email and we send you essay samples