Bruce markets a wine called Bruce's Middle of the Road Medley Red. All the wine is 2006 vintage. It is a blend of the following:
45% Shiraz from Lenswood
30% Grenache from Lenswood
20% Mourvedre from Piccadilly Valley
5% Mourvedre from the Adelaide Plains
(a) Bruce is thinking about renaming the wine, calling it Bruce's GSM, and increasing its price by 25%. The label blurb says in part: “This is a classic Grenache-Syrah-Mourvedre blend...” Is this acceptable?
Showing posts with label legalese. Show all posts
Showing posts with label legalese. Show all posts
Monday, May 3, 2010
Wednesday, March 31, 2010
Why I Haven't Written
I've been under the rock of academia, fretting about my personal belongings (which are still MIA, though they were shipped from JAX in January and due in Adelaide a month ago). Rumor has it that the company I paid has just recently put my boxes on a boat. I have a Bill of Lading. That's a good sign. And then, in my problem set for International Wine Law, I get this question:
Question 16
Bruce shipped three containers of wine to his agent Maureen in Basra. The wine was shipped aboard the Sedentary Duck, another ship in the service of RAFOFF shipping. In the straights of Malacca the Sedentary Duck was attacked and boarded by pirates. The pirates set fire to the ship. The damage was such that the Sedentary Duck needed to divert to Singapore for repairs. These occupied a month and delivery of the wine at Basra was delayed accordingly. While the ship was in Singapore the first mate unloaded and sold one of the containers and disappeared with the proceeds. On eventual discharge at Basra it was found that the heat from the fire had affected the contents of one of the remaining containers so that the wine shipped in it was unmerchantable. The other container was unaffected, but the wine was only saleable at half the price it would have brought the week before because of a sudden glut in the small Iraqi wine market due to the importation of a large amount of US Cabernet Sauvignon the previous week. Bruce had insured the three containers with All Risks & No Cares Insurance under a marine cargo policy.
The policy covers:
Loss or damage cause by perils of the seas, rivers, lakes, or other navigable waters, fire or explosion, stranding, grounding, sinking or capsize, collision with any external object other than water, discharge of cargo at port of distress, earthquake, volcanic activity, lightning, and any loss or damage cause by general average sacrifice, jettison or washing overboard, entry of sea or river or lake water into the vessel, hold, conveyance container, liftvan or place of storage, total loss of any package lost overboard or dropped whilst loading or unloading, piracy, barratry of master officers or crew, BUT IN NO CASE COVERS any loss or damage caused by willful misconduct of the insured, ordinary leakage or wastage, ordinary wear and tear, insufficiency of unsuitability of packaging, inherent vice, unseaworthiness of the vesel or unfitness of conveyance containers where the insured is privy to the unfitness at the time the goods are loaded, delay even if the delay is caused by an event insured against, loss or damage resulting from insolvency or financial default of the carrier, use of any nuclear weapon, civil war, rebellion or resulting strife, hostile acts by a belligerent power, actual or attempted capture or seizure or arrest or restraint or detainment (piracy excepted) or the consequences thereof, derelict weapons of war, strikes, lockouts, labour disturbances, riots, civil commotion, terrorism, or any any by a person with a political motive.
(a) Bruce wishes to know if he can successfully claim against the policy for the total loss of the two containers and the partial loss of the third.
(b) Suppose the wine had not been insured and the Australian amended Hague-Visby Rules applied. Would Bruce have any claim against RAFOFF? If so, then what would be the extent of RAFOFF's liability?
...................one empathizes with poor Bruce. As legal council, I suggest he pay closer attention to vessel names in the future.
Question 16
Bruce shipped three containers of wine to his agent Maureen in Basra. The wine was shipped aboard the Sedentary Duck, another ship in the service of RAFOFF shipping. In the straights of Malacca the Sedentary Duck was attacked and boarded by pirates. The pirates set fire to the ship. The damage was such that the Sedentary Duck needed to divert to Singapore for repairs. These occupied a month and delivery of the wine at Basra was delayed accordingly. While the ship was in Singapore the first mate unloaded and sold one of the containers and disappeared with the proceeds. On eventual discharge at Basra it was found that the heat from the fire had affected the contents of one of the remaining containers so that the wine shipped in it was unmerchantable. The other container was unaffected, but the wine was only saleable at half the price it would have brought the week before because of a sudden glut in the small Iraqi wine market due to the importation of a large amount of US Cabernet Sauvignon the previous week. Bruce had insured the three containers with All Risks & No Cares Insurance under a marine cargo policy.
The policy covers:
Loss or damage cause by perils of the seas, rivers, lakes, or other navigable waters, fire or explosion, stranding, grounding, sinking or capsize, collision with any external object other than water, discharge of cargo at port of distress, earthquake, volcanic activity, lightning, and any loss or damage cause by general average sacrifice, jettison or washing overboard, entry of sea or river or lake water into the vessel, hold, conveyance container, liftvan or place of storage, total loss of any package lost overboard or dropped whilst loading or unloading, piracy, barratry of master officers or crew, BUT IN NO CASE COVERS any loss or damage caused by willful misconduct of the insured, ordinary leakage or wastage, ordinary wear and tear, insufficiency of unsuitability of packaging, inherent vice, unseaworthiness of the vesel or unfitness of conveyance containers where the insured is privy to the unfitness at the time the goods are loaded, delay even if the delay is caused by an event insured against, loss or damage resulting from insolvency or financial default of the carrier, use of any nuclear weapon, civil war, rebellion or resulting strife, hostile acts by a belligerent power, actual or attempted capture or seizure or arrest or restraint or detainment (piracy excepted) or the consequences thereof, derelict weapons of war, strikes, lockouts, labour disturbances, riots, civil commotion, terrorism, or any any by a person with a political motive.
(a) Bruce wishes to know if he can successfully claim against the policy for the total loss of the two containers and the partial loss of the third.
(b) Suppose the wine had not been insured and the Australian amended Hague-Visby Rules applied. Would Bruce have any claim against RAFOFF? If so, then what would be the extent of RAFOFF's liability?
...................one empathizes with poor Bruce. As legal council, I suggest he pay closer attention to vessel names in the future.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
