In 2021, a shipment of electronics worth US$2 million was to be transported by sea from the manufacturer's factory in Singapore to its European warehouse in Rotterdam for onwards sales. Click here and zoom in/out to see the map of the route that was scheduled to be taken. A bill of lading was issued once the cargo was loaded onto the vessel docked at the Port of Singapore. During the journey, a large container ship, the Ever Given, became lodged in the Suez Canal, causing a significant blockage that disrupted global shipping routes for nearly a week. The vessel re-routed to avoid the blockage, unlike some others which decided to wait at sea for the blockage to clear. However, the alternative route was longer, with severe storms. As a result, the shipper incurred significant losses due to the delay and the damaged cargo. The carrier claimed immunity under the Hague-Visby Rules. Appraise why the Hague-Visby Rules apply to this shipment. Support your view with reasons. Where appropriate, you should cite the relevant provisions of the Hague-Visby Rules to support your answer. Formulate a view as to whether the carrier is liable for the delay and the damaged cargo by evaluating its relevant obligations and defences (i.e., non-liability). Support your view with reasons. You may make reasonable assumptions. Where appropriate, you should cite the relevant provisions of the Hague-Visby Rules to support your answer. Propose two (2) key aspects of the Hamburg Rules that could have better protected the shipper in this scenario, given that it suffered losses arising from the delay and the damaged cargo. Support your view with reasons. You may make reasonable assumptions. Where appropriate, you should cite the relevant provisions of the Hamburg Rules and Hague-Visby Rules to support your answer. Conclude with one (1) possible reason why there are relatively less countries which ratified and acceded to Hamburg Rules. In 2021, a shipment of electronics worth US$2 million was to be transported by sea from the manufacturer's factory in Singapore to its European warehouse in Rotterdam for onwards sales. Click here and zoom in/out to see the map of the route that was scheduled to be taken. A bill of lading was issued once the cargo was loaded onto the vessel docked at the Port of Singapore. During the journey, a large container ship, the Ever Given, became lodged in the Suez Canal, causing a significant blockage that disrupted global shipping routes for nearly a week. The vessel re-routed to avoid the blockage, unlike some others which decided to wait at sea for the blockage to clear. However, the alternative route was longer, with severe storms. As a result, the shipper incurred significant losses due to the delay and the damaged cargo. The carrier claimed immunity under the Hague-Visby Rules. Appraise why the Hague-Visby Rules apply to this shipment. Support your view with reasons. Where appropriate, you should cite the relevant provisions of the Hague-Visby Rules to support your answer. Formulate a view as to whether the carrier is liable for the delay and the damaged cargo by evaluating its relevant obligations and defences (i.e., non-liability). Support your view with reasons. You may make reasonable assumptions. Where appropriate, you should cite the relevant provisions of the Hague-Visby Rules to support your answer. Propose two (2) key aspects of the Hamburg Rules that could have better protected the shipper in this scenario, given that it suffered losses arising from the delay and the damaged cargo. Support your view with reasons. You may make reasonable assumptions. Where appropriate, you should cite the relevant provisions of the Hamburg Rules and Hague-Visby Rules to support your answer. Conclude with one (1) possible reason why there are relatively less countries which ratified and acceded to Hamburg Rules.

In 2021, a shipment of electronics worth US$2 million was to be transported by sea from the manufacturer's factory in Singapore to its European warehouse in Rotterdam for onwards sales. Click here and zoom in/out to see the map of the route that was scheduled to be taken. A bill of lading was issued once the cargo was loaded onto the vessel docked at the Port of Singapore. During the journey, a large container ship, the Ever Given, became lodged in the Suez Canal, causing a significant blockage that disrupted global shipping routes for nearly a week. The vessel re-routed to avoid the blockage, unlike some others which decided to wait at sea for the blockage to clear. However, the alternative route was longer, with severe storms. As a result, the shipper incurred significant losses due to the delay and the damaged cargo. The carrier claimed immunity under the Hague-Visby Rules. Appraise why the Hague-Visby Rules apply to this shipment. Support your view with reasons. Where appropriate, you should cite the relevant provisions of the Hague-Visby Rules to support your answer. Formulate a view as to whether the carrier is liable for the delay and the damaged cargo by evaluating its relevant obligations and defences (i.e., non-liability). Support your view with reasons. You may make reasonable assumptions. Where appropriate, you should cite the relevant provisions of the Hague-Visby Rules to support your answer. Propose two (2) key aspects of the Hamburg Rules that could have better protected the shipper in this scenario, given that it suffered losses arising from the delay and the damaged cargo. Support your view with reasons. You may make reasonable assumptions. Where appropriate, you should cite the relevant provisions of the Hamburg Rules and Hague-Visby Rules to support your answer. Conclude with one (1) possible reason why there are relatively less countries which ratified and acceded to Hamburg Rules. In 2021, a shipment of electronics worth US$2 million was to be transported by sea from the manufacturer's factory in Singapore to its European warehouse in Rotterdam for onwards sales. Click here and zoom in/out to see the map of the route that was scheduled to be taken. A bill of lading was issued once the cargo was loaded onto the vessel docked at the Port of Singapore. During the journey, a large container ship, the Ever Given, became lodged in the Suez Canal, causing a significant blockage that disrupted global shipping routes for nearly a week. The vessel re-routed to avoid the blockage, unlike some others which decided to wait at sea for the blockage to clear. However, the alternative route was longer, with severe storms. As a result, the shipper incurred significant losses due to the delay and the damaged cargo. The carrier claimed immunity under the Hague-Visby Rules. Appraise why the Hague-Visby Rules apply to this shipment. Support your view with reasons. Where appropriate, you should cite the relevant provisions of the Hague-Visby Rules to support your answer. Formulate a view as to whether the carrier is liable for the delay and the damaged cargo by evaluating its relevant obligations and defences (i.e., non-liability). Support your view with reasons. You may make reasonable assumptions. Where appropriate, you should cite the relevant provisions of the Hague-Visby Rules to support your answer. Propose two (2) key aspects of the Hamburg Rules that could have better protected the shipper in this scenario, given that it suffered losses arising from the delay and the damaged cargo. Support your view with reasons. You may make reasonable assumptions. Where appropriate, you should cite the relevant provisions of the Hamburg Rules and Hague-Visby Rules to support your answer. Conclude with one (1) possible reason why there are relatively less countries which ratified and acceded to Hamburg Rules.