61 855 24 45

Shipping Sub Agency Agreement

However, compensation does not cover matters resulting from the premeditation or negligence of the sub-agent. Although the FONASBA Standard Liner Agency Agreement contains a similar clause obliging the carrier to compensate the agent, most agreements drawn up by liner companies or their lawyers do not contain any such provision. It is therefore important that officers make efforts to negotiate the inclusion of such a clause when they are first appointed by a new line leader. In practice, there may of course be difficulties in convincing a head of line that the sub-agents thus designated by the Plenipotentiary-General actually act as representatives of the contracting authority. A similar case was heard in Canada in 1986 concerning the bankruptcy of a general agent. Once again, the sub-representatives failed to convince the Tribunal that there was a „contractual relationship” (the contractual relationship between the two parties) between the contracting authority and the sub-representative. The Canadian court was referred to an English case, Calico Printers` Association v. Barclays Bank, and more specifically to the judgment of Wright J. who stated that the agency`s appointment agreement contains a number of standard provisions for the appointment of an agent for a single port port call. The contract shall be concluded between the agent and a shipowner, ship operator, charterer or manager and shall determine the services to be provided and the remuneration to be paid. This contract was published on January 9, 2017 and is the latest issue.

The copyright of the agency agreement belongs to FONASBA. The editors are BIMCO and FONASBA. The facts were as follows: E.S. Binnings („Binnings”), an agent in Gulf ports, sued the shipping company for a commission of about 500,000 $US. The shipping company had previously hired a New York steamboat agent, F.W. Hartmann & Co. Inc. („Hartmann”), as a general agent for regular operations in North America.

The contract between Hartmann and the shipping company allowed Hartmann to appoint sub-agents at ports where Hartmann had no office. Hartmann appointed Binnings as Hartmann`s deputy agent for the Gulf of the United States and the ports of New Orleans and Houston. This contract between Hartmann and Binnings required the former to pay a 3% commission on all shipments shipped via New Orleans and Houston. Between 1981 and 1984, Hartmann`s financial situation deteriorated, and over the years 1983 and 1984, Hartmann`s Binning promissor notes accepted more than $300,000 for unpaid commissions. Subsequently, Hartmann ended the trade and Binnings tried to recover from the shipping company. The court found that there had never been a contract between the shipping company and Binnings and that the former had no responsibility for the commissions of the latter. . . .

Bezpłatna ocena sprawy

[contact-form-7 404 "Nie znaleziono"]