The bill of lading indicated that 3,000 tons of timber was received from Merchant LTD and the timber was received in good condition. In examining Wavy Line's responsibilities with regards to Merchant LTD it is prudent for Merchant LTD to know that the issuance of a bill of lading is accompanied by legal rights and responsibilities. Those rights and responsibilities as delineated by the Hague-Visby rules denote that under the "contract of carriage" the responsibilities and liabilities of Wavy Line include the premise that Wavy Line is obligated to exercise a superior degree of care in order to:
In examining Article II of the Hague-Visby Rules, we can clearly see that there is a breach of the contract by Wavy Line in that Wavy Line was obligated to ensure that the ship is adequately staffed prior to embarking on the voyage. The fact that Wavy Line had to stop to pick up a relief master on the way indicates that the staffing responsibility was not met as necessitated by the Hague-Visby Rules. Article III Section 5 of the Hague-Visby Rules addresses remuneration under these circumstances. The rules indicate that the value of the goods must be explicitly stated on the bill of laden if the carrier is expected to be responsible for total remuneration to the property owner. If, however, the total value of the goods is not indicated in the bill of laden, then the carrier is only responsible for the value of 666.67 units of account per package and the total value of the goods are to be determined based on their value at the time they were contracted to be delivered (Article III, Section 5-Hague-Visby Rules, 1968). According to this, I would advise Merchant LTD that Wavy Line did in fact fail to uphold their obligation to deliver the timber at the specified time. This obligation was not mitigated by any justifiable circumstances such as acts of God but it was a direct result of Wavy Line's failure to exhibit due diligence. As such, Merchant LTD can receive some compensation for the loss but the compensation they are able to receive is less than the total demanded due to the fact that the value of the merchandise was not explicitly stated on the bill of laden.
The case of Transfield Shipping Inc of Panama v. Mercator Shipping Inc of Monrovia,  EWHC 3030 (Comm);  can be utilized to substantiate the aforementioned analysis with regards to the party responsible for the loss, however, the amount of judgment based on Transfield Shipping Inc of Panama v. Mercator Shipping Inc of Monrovia,  proves to be interesting. The facts of the case of Transfield Shipping Inc of Panama v. Mercator Shipping Inc of Monrovia,  are such that in January of 2003, The Achilleas was time chartered to Transfield Shipping Inc. The charter was extended as delineated in a supplemental document at a new higher hire rate and the maximum duration of the agreement expired on 2 May 2004. Later, the owners entered