Freint de Route (In-transit loss) in Carriage of Oil Products by Sea Extended

Document Type : Research Paper

Author

Assistant Prof. Department of Private Law, Faculty of Law and Political Science, University of Tehran, Tehran, Iran

Abstract

Introduction
In maritime cargo transportation, numerous claims are frequently lodged against carriers, with the most prevalent issue in petroleum product shipments being claims for short delivery at the destination port. Such claims, governed by established legal frameworks including the 1924 Hague Rules concerning bills of lading and Iran's Maritime Law enacted in 1964, invariably result in carrier liability. Carriers are legally obligated to deliver the exact quantity of cargo specified in the bill of lading to the consignee at the destination port, with this document serving as the primary evidentiary standard for verifying cargo quantities originally received at the loading port.
However, minor cargo discrepancies may occur at discharge despite the carrier's faultless performance throughout loading, transportation, and unloading operations (including absence of tank leakage or other operational failures). These inevitable losses, commonly termed "in transit loss" (freint de route) or "customary allowance," are referred to in  this  study as  "natural damage" due to  their inherent occurrence in maritime transport. This 
phenomenon manifests when, for instance, petroleum products evaporate or adhere to tank walls, making complete delivery impossible, though no actual removal of cargo from vessels occurs. The principal causes of such losses stem from petroleum's unique physical properties (including hardening tendencies, tank wall adhesion, and volumetric shrinkage), specific cargo handling conditions during loading/unloading operations (including tank cleaning procedures and water/sediment content), and measurement inaccuracies during vessel loading. Consequently, standard dispute resolution procedures in oil transportation claims typically exempt carriers from liability for shortages up to approximately 0.5% of total cargo volume.
 
Methods
This research employs an analytical methodology incorporating comparative legal analysis of French, English, and American maritime law frameworks. Data collection was conducted through comprehensive review of library resources and legal databases, focusing on primary legal texts and secondary scholarly commentary.
 
Results and Discussion
The investigation identified evaporation, tank wall adhesion, water/sediment content, and loading/discharge measurement inaccuracies as primary contributors to natural damage. Beyond demonstrating vessel seaworthiness, carriers must additionally establish that such losses resulted from ordinary transportation circumstances. Liability exemption thresholds for such damages, absent contrary port customs, generally approximate 0.5% of cargo volume.
 
Conclusions
Contracting parties in maritime transport, particularly charterparty agreements, often expressly stipulate terms governing in-transit loss allowances. Absent such contractual provisions, the conditions for carrier exemption require careful legal examination. Scholarly perspectives diverge significantly: some authorities maintain that the inherent normality of such damage obviates the need for carrier proof; others contend that exemption merely requires demonstrating local port customs' acceptance of such losses; while a third approach, particularly prevalent in French jurisprudence, mandates case-specific proof of ordinary loss based on cargo nature and transport conditions.
American jurisprudence presents a complex counterpoint, where courts acknowledge industry practice while simultaneously deeming it incompatible with COGSA (derived from the 1924 Hague Rules), thereby imposing stricter evidentiary burdens on carriers. This tension has prompted U.S. courts and arbitral bodies to adopt a nuanced "totality of circumstances" assessment framework, requiring meticulous examination of all contextual factors in dispute resolution.

Keywords

Main Subjects

References

Babaei, I. (2010). Insurance Law, Second Edition, 9th Edition, Tehran: Samt Publications.
Taghizadeh, E. (2010). Maritime Transportation Law, First Edition, Tehran: Majd Publications.
Mohammadzadeh Vadeghani, A. (2002) Liability of the Sea Carrier, Journal of the Faculty of Law and Political Sciences, 55, 69-101.
Najafi Asfad, M. (2014) Maritime Law Based on Maritime Regulations and International Standards, Fifth Edition, Tehran: Samt Publications.
Anthony, G. (1984). Oil claims Recoveries in London, in Bulk Oil Transport Disputes, London: B.L.C.
Baatz, Y. (2014). Maritime Law, third edition, New York: Informa Law from Routledge.
Babai, I. (2010). The Law of Insurance, second edition, Tehran: Samt Publication [in Persian].
Bonassies, P. and Scapel, C. (2007). Traité de droit Maritime, Paris : L.G.D.J Delta.
Bundock, M. (2011) Shipping Law Handbook, 5th edition, London: Informa.
Mona D. (2022). France, in Chamberlain, Andrew, Colaço, Holly and Neylon, Richard, Shipping Law Review, 9th Edition, The Law Reviews.
Hermawan, Y. et al, (2021). Oil Losses Problem in Oil and Gas Industries, in Crude Oil, edited by Elsayed Abdel-Raouf and Mohamed Hasan El-Keshawy, Cairo: IntechOpen.
Longaker, K. (1986). Maritime Law - Custom - Carriage of Goods by Sea Act Precludes Enforcement of Oil Shipping Industry's 0.5% Customary Trade Allowance, Villanova Law Review, 31,1221-1244.
McCary, M. (2000). Distant Past or Future Trouble- Redefining Customary Trade Allowance in Maritime Oil Shortage Claims, Review of Litigation, 20 (1), 5-88.
McMahon, J. P. (1978). Oil - Calculation of Shortage - Trade Loss Allowance, Journal of Maritime Law and Commerce 9 (2) January.
Najafi Asfad, M. (2014). The Law of sea Transportation under national and International Rules, fifth edtition, Tehran: Samt Publication [In Persain].
Rodiere, R. et Du Pontavice, E. (2000). Droit Maritime, 12 Edition, Paris: Dalloz.
Rodiere, R. (1968). Affretements et Transports, Tome 2, Paris: Dalloz.
Sapra, R. (2016) Cargo oil heating practices, Standard Safety Tankers Journal, May (16-18).
Sivaraman, S. (1990). Vessel Experience Factor Issues Clarified, OIL & GAS Journal, Oct. 15.
Staples, C. (1985). The 0.5% Trade Allowance: The Third Circuit Holds the Custom Unenforceable under COGSA, Maritime Lawyer 10 (2),183-202.
Taghizadeh, E. (2010). the Law of Carriage by Sea, First Edition, Tehran, Majg publication [In Persian].
Tetley, W. (2007). Marine Cargo Claims, 4th edition, Vol. 1, London: Thomson Carswell.
Textor, M. (1982). Oil Shortages Caused by the Inherent Properties of Petroleum Cargoes, Journal of Maritime Law and Commerce, 13, 281-294.
Thomajan, R. (1983). Tanker Problems in Arbitration: The 0.5% Allowance, Journal of Maritime Law and Commerce, 14 (2), 225-242.
Vadeghani, A. (2002). Liability of Sea Carrier, Journal of Faculty of Law and Political Science, 55,101-69 [In Persian].
Wallace, E. (1977). Bulk Cargo Shortages: A Marine Whodunit, Maritime Lawyer, 3 (1), 83-102.
Wouters, M. (1988). Freinte de Route and the Carriage of Oil Products, Journal of Law and Economics, 23, 257-276.
 
Cases
American Motor Sales v. Furness, Withy & Co, 1958 AMC
Burgess v. M/V Tamano 1976 AMC
Sun Oil Co. v. M/T Carisle, 771 F. 2d 1986 AMC
Esso Nederland v. MT. Trade Fortitude 1977 AMC 2144 (S.D. N.Y.)
K/S A/S Verven and Co. v. Amoco Transport Co. (S. S. Staland), SMA No. 1636 (New York Arbitration 1982)
Trafigura Beheer BV v. Navigazione Montanari [2014] EWHC 129 (COMM).
Kerr-McGee Refining Corporation v. MV la Libertad 529 F. Supp. 78, 85, 1982 AMC 340 (S.D. N.Y.)
Cour d’ apple de Rouen, July 12, 1957, DMF 1958.
New England Petroleum Co. v. O.T. Sonja, 732 F. Supp. 1276, 1286 (S.D.N.Y.) 1990;
S.T.S. International v. Laurel Sea, 932 F.2d 437, 440 (5th Cir. 1991)
Georiandis Navigation, Inc. v. Mobile Shipping (SMA No. 2384, June 28, 1987, Cederholn Arbitration)
New England Petroleum Co. v. O.T. Sonja, 732 F. 1276. 83 (1990)
The Rio Sun (1985) 1 Lioyds’s Rep.

Files

Share

How to cite

Statistics