1.Material Facts Contract of utmost good faith-uberrimaefidei see Greenhill v Federal Insurance Co (1927) 1 65 Material circumstances s.18 s.

18(1)must disclosebeforethe contract is concluded every material particular which is known to the assured and the assured is deemed to know every circumstance which in the ordinary course of business outh to be known by him s.18(2)-material circumstance as would influence the judgment of a prudent insurer in fixing the premium or deciding whether to take the risk Material circumstance Berger and Light Diffusers Pty Ltd v Pollock(1973)2 Lioyd;s Rep 442 Since the assured is deemed to know what he should know in the ordinary course of business, it is irrelevant that he is in fact ignorant of it, even if it has been deliberately withheld from him Proudfoot v Montefiore (1867)LR 2 QB 511 Certain material circumstances need not in the absence of enquiry by the insurer, be disclosed by the assured-s.18(3) i. ii. Circumstance which diminish the risk Circumstance which is known, or must be presumed to be known to the insurer

-matters of common knowledge -matters which in the ordinary course of business the insurer should have knowledge -Matters which in the ordinary course of business the insurer should have knowledge But a particular fact relating to the general situation must be disclosed Bolivia Republic v Indemnity Mutual Marine Assurance Co (1909) 1 KB 785 iii. If the insurer waives knowledge of it will be deem to waive disclosure if the facts are such as to put him on enquiry but he in fact make no enquiry Greenhill v Federal Insurance Co (1927) 1 KB 65 IV. If it is superfluous to do so by reason of any express or implied warranty in the contract.

1. Whether the apprehension Of ..and its passengers made by -1 is legal? @ Whether . and its passengers have carried out illegal activity in s continental shelf? 2. Whether the arrest of . made by - on the basis of piracy is legal? @ Whether the act of seizing the ship. crew could amount piracy? 3. Whether ..is a true state for lacking of defined territory?

Issue 1 i. Authority.

Article 76 (1) Coastal State comprises the sea-bed and subsoil of the submarine areas that extend beyond its territorial sea throughout the natural prolongation of its land territory to the outer edge of the continental margin, or to a distance of 200 nautical miles. Article 77- rights of coastal state over the continental shelf (1) Sovereign rights to explore it and exploiting its natural resources (2) The natural resources consists of the mineral and other non-living resources of the sea-bed and subsoil together with living organisms under the sea-bed or subsoil Article 78- Limitations as to the rights of coastal state. (1) Their rights will not affect the legal status of the superjacent waters or of the air space above those waters (2) The exercise of the rights of the coastal State must not infringe or interfere with navigation and other rights and freedoms of other States as provided for in this convention Article 87- high seas are res communis and are open to all states (coastal or land locked) i. States enjoy freedom of the high seas is in respect of freedom of navigation, freedom of fishing, and freedom of scientific research, Issue 2 ii. Aplication

The act of seizure was committed by the crew of the ship itself without involving two ships It is not and act of piracy. The arrest made by Nev-2 was illegal. Only Berryland can have jurisdiction over the Mesina.

Issue 3

i.

Authority

Article 1, Montevedio Convention of the Rights and Duties of States of 1933 i. ii. a. b. c. d. Represent the legal criteria of statehood as demanded by customary international law A state under International Law is an entity which has:a permanent population a defined territory is under the control of a government capacity to engage in formal relations with other entities.

Defined territory i. ii. iii. a. ii. Refers to some definite physical existence that marks out a state clearly from its neighbors No need of complete certainty over the extent of territory Cases concerning border disputes does not affect the status of states:Disputes between India and Pakistan over Jammu- Kashmir Application

Defined territory is one of the requirements of statehood. But there is no need for complete certainty over the extent of territory. Thus, it will not affect the status of Aleeya as a true state. Berryland can bring the case to the International Court of Justice of Aleena cannot stand

Issue 1-BOL as a receipt as condition of the goods Principle/Law Compania Naviera Vasconda v. Churchill (1906) 1 K.b 237C Application Conclusion

Issue 2-Safe Port

Principle /Law Definition In The Eastern City ( 1958) 2 Lloyds L.R 137 the court said that:_ a port will not be safe unless, in the relevant period of time, the particular ship can reach it, use it and return from it without, in the absence of some abnormal occurrence, being exposed to danger which cannot be avoided by good navigation. In this case, the court held that an exposed or rocky anchorage may render a port unsafe, particularly one which is liable to onset of unpredictable gales or other bad weather.

The Saga Cob (1991) 2 Lloyds L.R 398 The port must be safe at the time it is nominated and be expected to remain safe but there is no guarantee that it will remain safe.The following factors should be noted:-

1. A port can be safe in all human probability it is expected to be safe, when the vessel is likely to arrive there, even though at the time of nomination it is temporarily unsafe 2. The size and the type of the vessel must be taken into account

3. A port may be politically unsafe.The vessal must be able to enter abd leave the port fully laden. The Alhamvro (1881) 6.P.D.68 4. A port can be safe even though it is occasionally unsafe in very high tide. Akt Eriksen v Foy Morgan (1926) 25 Lyoyd rep 422 5. To be safe port must have least one safe approach Gracie v General Steam Navigation Company (1950) 2 K.B 383 If the charterer nominates unsafe port he is liable to any ensuing damage. Gracie v. General Steam Navigation Company (1950) 2 K.B 383.. unless the main cause of the loss is the owners default or masters negligence. Application Conclusion

Issue 3- BOL as document of title Principle/ Law As a document of title Definition of a document of goods In Sanders v Maclean (1881) 11 Q.B.D 237 AT P.341 per Bowen LJ it is the key which in the hands of the rightful owner, is intended to unlock the door of the warehouse, floating or fixed, in which the goods may chance to be 3 purposes for which possession of the bill may be regarded as equivalent to possession of goods (i)The holder of the bill is entitled to delivery of the goods at the port of discharge (ii) The holder can transfer possession and may be able to transfer the ownership of the goods during transit merely by indorsing the bill Iii The bill can be use as security for debt Application Conclusion

Issue 4-Delivery of goods to the right person Principle /Law Ship owner is under contractual obligation to deliver the cargo to a specified or identifiable person, normally consignee in the Bill of Lading or endorsee

In Bourne V Gatliff (1844) 7 Man & G 850 that the court held as the shipowner is under the duty to make personal delivery of the cargo, he cannot discharge that obligation at common law merely unloading the goods and leaving them on the dockside. a. Delivery to a dock company or to habour porters equivalent to personal delivery to the consignee In Chartered Bank of India Australia and China v British Indian Steam Navigation Co. (1909) AC 369 the court held personal delivery may be excused by the custom of the port or by express provisions of contract. Such a clause was accompanied by a provision that the shipowner liability

b.

was to cease absolutely as soon as the goods were free of ships tackle. These clauses were held effective in excluding the shipowner from liability when lending agents employed by them fraudulently delivered the cargo without presentation of Bill of Lading In SzeHai Thong v Rambler Cycle Co (1959) AC 576, the court held delivery without presentation of bill of lading was regarded as a fundamental breach of contract and if made to wrong person may even prevent the shipowner from relying for protection on the bill of lading exceptions Application Conclusion

United Kingdom Normal baseline Art 5 UNCLOS Low-water line

Norway Straight baseline Anglo Norwegian Fisheries Case Art 7 UNCLOS

Any accident occurring between vessels causing losses or damages even if no actual contract has taken place Types of accident Actual and presumed collision Unilateral liability collision, both to blame collision and inevitable accident Negligent, intentional and inevitable collisions

Remedies

Restitution in integrum Damages should place claimant as nearly as possible in a position equivalent to that which it occupied prior to the incident, giving rise to such claim Direct consequence of collision Only direct consequence of the accident are recoverable Duty to render assistance and mitigate damage or loss Master of each vessel in collision is bound, so far as he can do so without serious danger to his vessel, crew and its passengers, to render assistance to the other vessel, its crew and passengers. If victim fails to take reasonable measures to mitigate his loss or damage, it may not recover the aggravated loss or damage.

Total loss and constructive total loss Compensation for total loss: (1) value of the vessel (2) damage due to demurrage including loss of freight (3) damages paid or payable to a third party (4) mariner's remunerations and repatriation cost (5) interests (6) other charges

Compensation for constructive total loss: (1) value of the vessel (2) salvage costs (3) costs for inspection (4) lost freight (5) damages paid or payable to a third party (6) interests

Compensation for partially loss vessel Expenses in cash and loss for detention