Welcome to website of Shandong Win & Win Co. Law Firm

热线电话
Excellent cases / Law Firm News

Successful Solving Maritime Dispute

On June, 2014, the plaintiff HO Sea Co.(hereinafter referred to as HO Sea Company) used the ship to carry a batch of aquatic products of the defendant Qingdao Yuan Fishery Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as Yuan Company) from the southwest Atlantic Ocean to China’s Shidao Port.HO Sea Company filed a lawsuit to Qingdao Maritime Court on the dispute over voyage charter party, claiming that two parties signed a voyage charter party contract and Yuan Fishery Company was in arrears with its freight, demurrage and additional port charges, and requested Yuan Fishery Company to pay its above fees.

Qingdao Yuan Company defended: 1. The two parties never signed a voyage charter party, and the so-called voyage charter party was signed by the plaintiff solely, without legal effect, so there is no factual and legal basis for its claim; 2. The transport act should belong to general maritime cargo transport, and the plaintiff’s claim has exceeded the limitation of action;

The focus of the case: 1. What kind of contractual relationship should be established between the plaintiff and the defendant; 2. How to calculate the fees that the defendant Yuan Company should pay to the plaintiff HO Sea Company.

Fact analysis:
1.HO Sea Company transported the goods of Yuan Company with the ships it operated, and Yuan Company also paid the expenses to HO Sea Company, which is the basic obligation of the shipper and the carrier in the contract of carriage of goods by sea. In the absence of other evidences proving the subject, content and performance of the contract, it should be recognized that the contract of carriage of goods by sea is established between the plaintiff and the defendant.HO Sea Company claimed to establish voyage charter party between the two parties, but there was no signature of Yuan Company in the contract, nor evidence to prove that it has sent the contract. HO Sea Company’s claim has no factual and legal basis.
2. Regarding the freight payable by Yuan Company to HO Sea Company. Since HO Sea Company did not provide evidence to prove the weight and unit price of the goods transported, according to the weight and unit price of the goods provided by Yuan Company, it has paid the freight, and didn’t owe HO Sea Company any freight.

Case resolution:
After accepting the entrustment of Yuan Fishery Company, the lawyers of our Win & Win Co. law firm dealt with the case. First of all, after fully understanding the basic facts and focus issues of the case, through analysis, it is concluded that the litigation claims by HO Sea Company were lack of relevant evidence and factual support, without factual legal basis, and should not be supported by the court. In the course of the trial of this case, collected and sorted out the evidence in favor of the client to prove that client did not owe the plaintiff any expenses. Finally, Qingdao Maritime Court issued a civil judgment, which rejected all claims of HO Sea Company.

Case analysis:
Voyage charter party refers to the written agreement signed by the ship-owner and the charterer that the ship-owner leases the ship to the charterer according to one or more voyage and the charterer pays the agreed freight. In this case, as a carrier, HO Sea Company is responsible for the transportation of a batch of goods of Yuan Company, which is the relationship between the carrier and the shipper. It is not the relationship between the lessor and the lessee. The relationship between the two parties is a general contract of carriage of goods by sea, not a voyage charter party relationship. In addition, Article 64 Of The Civil Procedure Law stipulates that “the parties have the responsibility to provide evidence for their claims”. Article 2, Paragraph 4, Of The Several Provisions Of The Supreme People’s Court On Evidence In Civil Proceedings stipulates: “if there is no evidence or evidence is not sufficient to prove the parties’ claims of fact, the parties bearing the burden of proof shall bear the adverse consequences.” As the plaintiff,HO Sea Company shall bear the burden of proof for the claim. If it fails to provide relevant evidence, it shall bear the adverse consequences of losing the lawsuit.

Prev:
Next: