Digests

marITImE law

Contracts

Cross-motions for summary judgment in action for unpaid bunkers against ship, its owners, time charterer—Issue whether owners, managers of ship personally liable, and if not, whether ship still liable in rem—Plaintiff arguing time charterer (Parkroad Corporation) contracting not only on own behalf, but also on behalf of ship, owners—Time charterer having no actual authority from owners, managers of ship to contract for supply of bunkers on their behalf or on credit of ship—Plaintiff unaware of this fact, selecting maritime law of United States to govern contract—Under American law, necessaries man presumed to have contracted on credit of ship—Such presumption rebutted by establishing necessaries man having actual knowledge of contracting party’s lack of authority to bind ship—If presumption not rebutted, American law creating maritime lien—Under Canadian maritime law, necessaries man not enjoying maritime lien, but statutory right in rem against ship if owners personally liable—No express, tacit authority given to contract on owners’ behalf, ship’s credit—Mere fact of entering into demise charter not giving charterer actual, ostensible authority—Under Canadian maritime law, owners not personally liable—As to whether American law applicable, because no contractual relationship between owners, plaintiff, choice of law clause having less significance— Therefore, Court having to weigh factors connecting case to United States—American factors outweighed by non-American ones, such as ship’s flag; owners’ domicile; place of bunkers’ purchase, delivery; place of ship’s arrest—Therefore, American law not proper law—Defendant’s motion granted; plaintiff’s motion dismissed; action dismissed except against Parkroad Corporation.

World Fuel Services Corporation v. Nordems (Ship) (T-1914-08, 2010 FC 332, Harrington J., judgment dated March 25, 2010, 33 pp.)