cargo newsletter no65( n y175787. d o c;2)(货物通讯no65(n y175787。d o c;2)).docVIP

cargo newsletter no65( n y175787. d o c;2)(货物通讯no65(n y175787。d o c;2)).doc

  1. 1、本文档被系统程序自动判定探测到侵权嫌疑,本站暂时做下架处理。
  2. 2、如果您确认为侵权,可联系本站左侧在线QQ客服请求删除。我们会保证在24小时内做出处理,应急电话:400-050-0827。
  3. 3、此文档由网友上传,因疑似侵权的原因,本站不提供该文档下载,只提供部分内容试读。如果您是出版社/作者,看到后可认领文档,您也可以联系本站进行批量认领。
查看更多
MARITIME LAW ASSOCIATION OF THE UNITED STATES Committee on Carriage of Goods CARGO NEWSLETTER NO. 65 (SPRING 2015) Editor: Michael J. Ryan Associate Editors: Edward C. Radzik David L. Mazaroli FORUM CLAUSE SWEEPS SANDY CARGO TO TOKYO… A subrogated underwriter sued with respect to two shipments carried from China to New Jersey. The shipments were discharged two days before Hurricane Sandy struck New Jersey. (The two cases were two of fifteen consolidated for all purposes). The subrogated underwriter claimed the shipments were damaged by “wetness” and that the ocean carrier discharged the cargo two days before the hurricane. The subrogated underwriter claimed the ocean carrier knew of or should have known of the “well predicted and highly publicized impact” of the hurricane, including expected storm surges, rising water level, heavy wind, and rain. The subrogated underwriter also alleged breach of contract and obligations as a carrier for hire and/or bailee. The ocean carrier had issued waybills for the shipments, both of which incorporated the terms and conditions of its standard Combined Transport Bill of Lading. This contained a governing law and jurisdiction clause calling for jurisdiction in the Tokyo District Court in Japan and Japanese law “except as may be otherwise provided for herein.” The ocean carrier moved to dismiss both complaints arguing that the forum selection clause mandated that any claims against it be brought in Tokyo. The Court referred to the Supreme Court decision in Atlantic Marine Construction Co. v. United States District Court for the Western District of Texas, (134 S.Ct. 580), as setting forth the manner to enforce a forum selection clause should be way of motion to dismiss for forum non conveniens. It noted the Supreme Court left open the question of whether such a motion may alternatively be brought under Rule 12(b)(6), however, the Court went on to construe the motion under forum non conveniens principles se

您可能关注的文档

文档评论(0)

heti94575 + 关注
实名认证
文档贡献者

该用户很懒,什么也没介绍

1亿VIP精品文档

相关文档