Case Analysis
- Submitted by: windowslee
- Views: 89
- Category: Politics: Economics
- Date Submitted: 12/15/2015 04:44 AM
- Pages: 3
- Report this Essay
1. The coverage of “All Risks” includes that of “WPA”, and the coverage of 11 General Additional Risks. As “Heating and Sweating” is among these risks, the damage in the case is naturally within the coverage “All Risks”, and the insurer should definitely make compensations.
2. In the implementation of both contracts, the damages occurred before the goods cross the rail of ship, implying that at the time of the damage, the property rights to the goods still belonged to the exporter.
For the FOB contract, the insurance should be obtained by the importer, and it was actually purchased by the importer. In spite of this fact, the property rights to the goods hadn’t effectively transferred from the exporter to the importer at the time of damage, causing the importer to lack insurable interest to the goods. Without insurable interest, it cannot get compensation from the insurer, even though the damage occurred with the effective period as stipulated by the W/W clause.
For the CIF contract, the insurance should be obtained by the exporter, and it was actually purchased by the exporter. At the time of damage, the property right to the goods belonged to the exporter, who was also the insured party in the insurance contract. As a result, the exporter on the one hand holds the insurance contract, and on the other hand the insurable interest to the goods. The damage also occurred with the effective period as stipulated by the W/W clause. There is no doubt that the insurer needed to make the compensation.
3. (1) and (3) was directly caused by the risk (fire), and belongs to P.A.
(2) and (4) arose from actual measures taken to extinguish the fire, and belongs to G.A.
4. Two possibilities: (1)The holes had already existed before loading
(2)The holes had not existed before loading.
Should the Australian exporter be held accountable in (1) and (2)?
(1) The existence of the holes before shipment suggests that the exporter hadn’t fulfilled the duty of...
2. In the implementation of both contracts, the damages occurred before the goods cross the rail of ship, implying that at the time of the damage, the property rights to the goods still belonged to the exporter.
For the FOB contract, the insurance should be obtained by the importer, and it was actually purchased by the importer. In spite of this fact, the property rights to the goods hadn’t effectively transferred from the exporter to the importer at the time of damage, causing the importer to lack insurable interest to the goods. Without insurable interest, it cannot get compensation from the insurer, even though the damage occurred with the effective period as stipulated by the W/W clause.
For the CIF contract, the insurance should be obtained by the exporter, and it was actually purchased by the exporter. At the time of damage, the property right to the goods belonged to the exporter, who was also the insured party in the insurance contract. As a result, the exporter on the one hand holds the insurance contract, and on the other hand the insurable interest to the goods. The damage also occurred with the effective period as stipulated by the W/W clause. There is no doubt that the insurer needed to make the compensation.
3. (1) and (3) was directly caused by the risk (fire), and belongs to P.A.
(2) and (4) arose from actual measures taken to extinguish the fire, and belongs to G.A.
4. Two possibilities: (1)The holes had already existed before loading
(2)The holes had not existed before loading.
Should the Australian exporter be held accountable in (1) and (2)?
(1) The existence of the holes before shipment suggests that the exporter hadn’t fulfilled the duty of...