어처구이 없을거라 생각 하실꺼에요 하지만 너무급한나머지 여기까지 와서 글을 올려보내요.. 부탁드려요 조국통일님.................... In The Good Friend the authorities at the port of destination prohibited the unloading of the vessel because it was infested with insects. The immunity did not apply because the insects had been present when the voyage had begun and the vessel had therefore been unseaworthy.
<br>
(h) Quarantine restrictions. In view of the preceding immunity there appears to be no reason for the appearance of this as a separate immunity as far as English law is concerned.
<br>
(i) Act of omission of the shipper of owner of the goods, his agent of representative.
<br>
(j) Strikes of lockouts of stoppages of restrains of labour from whatever cause whether partial of general.
<br>
(k) Riots of civil commotions. A civil commotion has been said to be an intermediate stage between a riot and a civil war.
<br>
(l) Saving of attempting to save life of property at sea. This immunity clearly overlaps article IV(4). See p 29, above.
<br>
(m) Wastage in bulk of weight of any other loss of damage arising from an inherent defect, quality of vice of the goods. This exception, which in the common law is known as ‘inherent vice’, covers any loss occurring through some natural defect of quality in the goods themselves, as, for example, acid in fertilisers eventually rotting the bags in which they were packed. The immunity will naturally not avail the carrier if the damage, though arising from the nature of the goods, was caused by bad stowage.
<br>
(n) Insufficiency of packing. This immunity, like the previous one, will not apply where there has been bad stowage.
<br>
(o) Insufficiency or inadequacy of marks.
<br>
(p) Latent defects not discoverable by due diligence.
<br>
(q) Any other cause arising without the actual fault or privity of the carrier or without the fault or neglect of the agents or servants of the carrier…The carrier will be able to claim the benefit of this immunity only to the extent that he can prove the absence of fault, privity or neglect. In Leesh River Tea Co v British India Steam Navigation Co damage resulted to cargo as a result of the theft by stevedores of a storm valve cover plate. The carrier was entitled to the benefit of the immunity since a stevedore, although he may for some purposes be an agent of the carrier, is not so when he commits, as here, an act entirely outside the scope of his agency.
<br>
<!-- -->
첫댓글 큭 ~~~~~~~~~~이걸 지금 4:48분에 발견햇는뎅. 눈알이 뱅그르르르를 도네요.쩌업~~~~~~~
해석을 원하시는 건가요?
해석을 부탁드려요^^:: 너무 막막해서 무역을 공부하는데 넘어려워서요^^::