SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Journal of Awareness / 2026 / Cilt: 4 Sayı: 1

A DISCUSSION OF THE HISTORY AND DEVELOPMENT OF THE ARRIVED SHIP DOCTRINE

Sinan Misili(ULUDAĞ ÜNİVERSİTESİ)0000-0002-6759-2317
Pages
111–122
Publication Date
2019-02-12
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

It is going to be focused on the cases in English Courts.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:There are three requirements for laytime to commence in common law.
📊
Key Findings & Data:Firstly, the vessel must arrive at the agreed destination.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:It is going to be focused on the cases in English Courts.
🔬Design:Araştırma Makalesi
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Arrived Ship · Laytime · Notice of Readiness.

Abstract

There are three requirements for laytime to commence in common law. Firstly, the vessel must arrive at the agreed destination. Secondly, the vessel must be ready to load or discharge the cargo. Lastly, notice of readiness must be given to charterers or their agents. Under English Law, especially as a doctrine “arrived ship” is considered when only first requirement is satisfied. At loading and unloading, there is limited time interval called laytime in common law which is either fixed or customary. So charterer must complete its loading or unloading in these time limits. If there is a limited time it is important to determine the commencing point. In common law it is determined by “arrived ship doctrine”. This work will examine “the history and development of the arrived ship doctrine”. It is going to be focused on the cases in English Courts.

🔖

Cite This Article

Misili, S. (2019). A DISCUSSION OF THE HISTORY AND DEVELOPMENT OF THE ARRIVED SHIP DOCTRINE. Journal of Awareness, Cilt: 4 Sayı: 1, 111–122. https://doi.org/10.26809/joa.4.009

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (19)

  1. COLINVAUX, R., (Reprinted in) 1995, Carver’s Carriage By Sea (13th edn), Sweet&Maxwell, London, 0-420-45110-2.
  2. COOKE J. et al., 2014, Voyage Charters (4th edn.), Informa Law, Oxon, 978-1-315-79502-7.
  3. DAVIES, D., 2006, Commencement of Laytime (4th edn.), Informa, London, 1-84311-530-1.
  4. GARNER, B.A., 2009, Black’s Law Dictionary (9th edn.), West, USA, 978-0-314-19949-2.
  5. GIRVIN, S., 2011, Carriage of Goods By Sea (2nd edn.), Oxford, 978-0-19-958991-3.
  6. HILL, C., 2003, Maritime Law (6thedn.), LLP, London, 1-84311-255-8.
  7. PACKARD,W.V., (Reprinted in) 1983, Laytime Calculating, Fairplay Publications,London, 0- 905045-09-2.
  8. SCHOFIELD, J., 2011, Laytime and Demurrage(6th. edn.), Informa,Oxon,978-1-84311-945-6.
  9. TIBERG, H., 1979, The Law of Demurrage (3rd edn.), Stevens&Sons.
  10. WILSON, J.F.,2010, Carriage of Goods by Sea (7th edn.), Pearson, Essex, 978-1-4082-1893-8.
  11. Agrimpex Hungarian Trading Company for Agricultural Products v. Sociedad Financiera de Bienes Raices, S.A. [1958] 2 Llyod’s Rep. 65.
  12. Agrimpex Hungarian Trading Company for Agricultural Products v. Sociedad Financiera de Bienes Raices, S.A. [1960] 1 Llyod’s Rep. 623.
  13. E.L. Oldendorff &CO. G.M.B.H v. Tradax Export S.A. [1972] 2 Llyod’s Rep 292.
  14. E.L. Oldendorff &CO. G.M.B.H v. Tradax Export S.A. [1973] 2 Llyod’s Rep 285.
  15. Federal Commerce and Navigation Co. Ltd. v. Tradax Export S.A. [1977] 1 Llyod’s Rep. 217
  16. Federal Commerce and Navigation Co. Ltd. v. Tradax Export S.A. [1977] 2 Llyod’s Rep. 301.
  17. Leonis Steamship Company, Limited v. Rank, Limited, [1908] 1 K.B. 499.
  18. Shipping Developments Corporation S.A. v. V/O Sojuzneftexport [1971] 1 Llyod’s Rep 506.
  19. URL-1 Voyage Charterparty Laytime Interpretation Rules 1993 (The Voylayrules 93). http://www.uio.no/studier/emner/jus/jus/JUR5401/h06/undervisningsmateriale/ voylayrules93.pdf (10.07.2018).