Rights of a Charterer v. Rights of a Shipowner Flashcards
What is the jurisprudential ruling on the distinguishing factors between the rights of a shipowner and a charterer, as discussed in Yueng Sheng Exchange and Trading Co. v. Urrutia & Co.?
The whole ground of this assignment of errors rests on the proposition advanced by the appellant company that ‘the charterer of a vessel, under the conditions stipulated in the charter party in question, is the owner pro hac vice of the ship and takes upon himself the responsibilities of the owner.’
x x x
If G. Urrutia & Co., by virtue of the above-mentioned contract, became the agents of the Cebu, then they must respond for the damages claimed, because the owner and the agent are civilly responsible for the acts of the captain.
But G. Urrutia & Co. could not in any way exercise the powers or rights of an agent. They could not represent the ownership of the vessel, nor could they, in their own name and in such capacity, take judicial or extrajudicial steps in all that relates to commerce; thus if the Cebu were attached, they would have no legal capacity to proceed to secure its release; speaking generally, not even the fines could or ought to be paid by them, unless such fines were occasioned by their orders. x x x.
The contract executed by Smith, Bell & Co., as agents for the Cebu, and G. Urrutia & Co., as charterers of the vessel, did not put the latter in the place of the former, nor make them agents of the owner or owners of the vessel. With relation to those agents, they retained opposing rights derived from the charter party of the vessel, and at no time could they be regarded by the third parties, or by the authorities, or by the courts, as being in the place of the owners or the agents in matters relating to the responsibilities pertaining to the ownership and possession of the vessel. x x x
