The Maritime Law Blog

CISG and Auctions: Interpreting “Auction” under Article 2(b) of the CISG

2 November 2024

Pursuant to Article 2(b) of the United Nations Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods (CISG), the CISG does not apply to sales by auction. What was the rationale for the exclusion of sales by auction from the scope of the CISG? How should an “auction” be interpreted under Article 2(b) of the CISG? Should any and all auctions fall within the scope of Article 2(b) of the CISG? These questions are explored in this article.

SCOTUS Denies Shell’s Certiorari Petition: Contracts for Inspecting and Repairing Lifeboats on Oil Platforms Qualified as Maritime

10 October 2024

On October 7, 2024, the U.S. Supreme Court denied Shell’s certiorari petition to review the Fifth Circuit’s decision, which held that a contract to inspect and repair lifeboats on an oil platform located on the Outer Continental Shelf is a maritime contract. Earnest v. Palfinger Marine USA, Inc., 90 F.4th 804 (5th Cir. 2024).

In re Lion Air Flight JT 610 Crash: The Application of Maritime Law in an Airplane Crash Case

4 October 2024

The choice of applicable law and the choice of forum—these are two key strategic determinations that must be made in almost all legal matters. Maritime cases are not an exception. In the case decided by the Seventh Circuit on August 6, 2024, the plaintiffs relied on both federal and state law to make their cases as advantageous as possible and requested a jury trial in federal court. See In re Lion Air Flight JT 610 Crash, 110 F.4th 1007 (7th Cir. 2024). How did the court respond to these requests? Read on for more details.

Lack of Attorney Authority: Can It Be a Defense Against Enforcement of an Arbitral Award?

18 September 2024

The District of Columbia Circuit vacated the district court’s decision to enforce a foreign arbitral award because the respondent, against whom the petitioner sought to enforce the arbitral award, challenged the authority of the petitioner’s attorneys. Does this result align with the traditionally narrow scope of enforcement proceedings under the New York Convention? Should the district court resolve the authority dispute despite the parties’ contractual commitment to resolve such corporate governance issues through arbitration? Is it proper to allow one party to challenge the other party’s authority during enforcement proceedings, even though this party had opportunity—and was even invited—to raise this issue during arbitration? These questions remain unresolved.

“We Aim To Create a More Sustainable and Better Shared Future.” Is It Always Safe to Publicly Declare a Commitment to Sustainability and Environmental Protection?

18 September 2024

Does your company make public statements that it cares about, and is working meaningfully toward, environmental sustainability? If yes, this article is for you. The opinion released by the District of Columbia Court of Appeals on August 29, 2024, demonstrates that even aspirational statements, such as the company’s statement on its website that it aims “to achieve positive change in the world and build a more sustainable future for our communities and our planet,” can be actionable under consumer protection laws for being false and misleading representations. Earth Island Inst. v. Coca-Cola Co., No. 22-CV-0895, 2024 WL 3976560 (D.C. Aug. 29, 2024).

Saving to Suitors Clause: Understanding the Fundamentals

2 September 2024

Under the jurisdictional statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1333(1), federal courts are granted “exclusive” jurisdiction over maritime claims. At the same time, the saving to suitors clause preserves the concurrent jurisdiction of state and federal courts. How to reconcile this conflict? Are there any other conflicts related to the saving to suitors clause? These questions are explored in this article.

Maritime Law Digest: July 2024

15 August 2024

This is the July 2024 edition of Maritime Law Digest, a monthly review of the most significant maritime cases decided primarily by the U.S. Supreme Court, U.S. Courts of Appeals, and state supreme courts.

The Suez Canal Blockage: Can the Carrier Recover the Increased Shipping Costs Caused by Rerouting?

5 June 2024

When the Ever Given, a large container ship, became lodged in the Suez Canal in March 2021, it blocked one the world’s busiest maritime routes for several days. This incident led to a significant disruption in global trade, as hundreds of ships were delayed or forced to reroute around the southern tip of Africa instead of passing through the canal. Rerouting around the southern tip of Africa, known as the Cape of Good Hope route, can add approximately 7 to 10 days to a ship’s journey. This longer route increases fuel consumption and operational costs. Can the carrier recover the increased shipping costs from the charterer? This question is analyzed in this article.

CISG and Auctions: Interpreting “Auction” under Article 2(b) of the CISG

SCOTUS Denies Shell’s Certiorari Petition: Contracts for Inspecting and Repairing Lifeboats on Oil Platforms Qualified as Maritime

Lack of Attorney Authority: Can It Be a Defense Against Enforcement of an Arbitral Award?

Saving to Suitors Clause: Understanding the Fundamentals

Ask your question

Click Here

maritime law

contract law

cisg

Ask your question

Newsletter