Salvage Agreement Meaning

The danger must be real, but not necessarily immediate or absolute. [6] The theme of the climb must be in real danger, which means that the property is exposed to damage or destruction. [7] Rescue could be defined as « any act or activity to support a vessel or other vessel in danger in navigable waters or other waters. » The English Oxford Dictionary defines rescue as a « rescue (a disabled ship or ship or cargo) before the loss at sea. » The general definition of rescue as a maritime term is « a reward for the rescue of property at sea. » The reward for saving lives is also there, but historically, recovery is linked to the rescue of property. The 1989 International Rescue Convention replaced a rescue law passed in Brussels in 1910, which contained the principle of « no cure, no remuneration » which only rewards a salvor for services if the operation is successful. Although this basic philosophy worked well in most cases, pollution was not taken into account. A salvor that avoided a major pollution incident (for example. B by towing a damaged tanker from an ecologically sensitive area), but which failed to save the vessel, or the cargo received nothing. As a result, there has been little incentive to conduct an operation that is unlikely to succeed. The 1989 Convention aims to address this gap by providing for a enhanced rescue premium, which will take into account the capabilities and efforts of the salvoirs to prevent or minimize environmental damage. The 1989 agreement introduced a « special allowance » to be paid to salvoirs who did not receive normal remuneration (by salving of the ship and cargo). Environmental damage is defined as « significant physical damage to human health or marine life or marine resources in coastal or inland waters or adjacent areas caused by pollution, pollution, fire, explosion or other incidents of a similar magnitude. » One of london Maritime`s law firms has proposed what commentators soon call the « LOF light. » The LOF light formula automatically integrated SCOPIC and then allowed the parties to perform services at the SCOPIC rate with an optional bonus. The bonus reflected incentives listed in Article 13 of the 1989 Convention, such as skill, danger, salvo value and length of service.

The Salvors, through their association, the International Rescue Union (ISU), did not support the proposal. Shipowners do not like to take into account the elements of section 13 of the 1989 convention because they are unable to estimate their exposure or the total cost of the rescue operation. Uncertainty makes the proposal unattractive to shipowners. If the rescue effectively prevents or minimizes environmental damage, the Salvor may claim a special enhanced compensation under Article 14, paragraph 2. The amount of the rescue premium can be increased up to a maximum of 30 percent of the costs borne by the Salvor. It is possible that an arbitrator could increase the special allowance to 100% of the costs incurred if the circumstances warrant it. However, the Salvors` negligence deprives all or part of its right to special compensation within the meaning of Article 14, paragraph 5. To require special compensation, it is necessary to prove that the vessel itself or the cargo is likely to cause environmental damage.

This goes beyond the provisions of the 1980 LOF environmental safety network, which were limited to tankers. There are significant differences between the above contracts. With the exception of the Beijing Form (CMAC 1994), « No Cure-No Pay » is the basic principle that is shared by national forms, and the term is printed on the surface of most documents. In practice, MARSALV is usually signed after a successful rescue operation.

Ce contenu a été publié dans Non classé par admin. Mettez-le en favori avec son permalien.