At common law, there is implied in every contract for the carriage of goods by sea a

warranty by the carrier that the ship is seaworthy, unless the warranty is expressly excluded.
The warranty implies that the ship is reasonably fit for the particular voyage which she is to
make, taking into account the geographical regions in which the voyage is to be made and
the cargo which the ship is to carry and all other relevant factors, The carrier does not
warrant that the ship is absolutely safe, but only that it has "that degree of fitness which an
ordinary careful owner would require his vessel to have at the commencement of her
voyage having regard to all the 25/The implied probable circumstances of it".24 The fact that
the vessel is not as safe as other ships does not amount to a breach of the warranty.25 duty
of seaworthiness is often described as a relative duty in that "it is relative to the nature of
the ship, to the particular voyage and even to the particular stage of the voyage on which
the ship is engaged... judged by the standards and practices of the industry at the relevant
time, at least so long as those standards and practices are reasonable".26 The factors to be
taken into account in determining whether or not the ship is seaworthy are not limited to
those directly affecting the state of the ship herself. Thus the ship is unseaworthy if the crew
is insufficient," if the master is unable to perform his duties owing to illness28 (or
drunkenness)29 and there is no one else on board capable of carrying out those duties, or if
inadequate training has been provided and the crew is not competent to carry out its
duties.30 The ship is presumably also unseaworthy if she is not equipped with sufficient
provisions³¹ or medicines32 for the crew during the voyage. The fact that a vessel must be
seaworthy in a physical sense is not, of itself, sufficient; the vessel must also be legally
compliant with all applicable mandatory regulations relating to the performance of the car-
riage obligation." Bad stowage does not necessarily make a ship 33 unseaworthy but may do
so if, in consequence of bad stowage, the ship commences the voyage in a condition which is
not fit for the voyage in question. Thus, where owing to bad stowage the crew's view of a p
was obscured and the ship sailed with the porthole open, liable for a breach of the warranty
of seaworthiness. However, in a case where a ship's cargo of coal was too great to allow
passage through the Panama Canal it was held that this did not make her unseaworthy,
although the master was at fault in overloading her.36 porthole the carrier was At common
law the carrier's warranty of seaworthiness is an absolute one. Once the ship is found not to
have been seaworthy for the voyage applying the objective test (i.e. it did not have the
relative degree of fitness that would have been required by an ordinary careful owner at the
com- mencement of the voyage given its probable circumstances) the carrier will be liable
for breach of the implied term, even if the carrier was not neg- ligent and did, in fact, use all
reasonable diligence to ensure seaworthiness.37 The absolute nature of the seaworthiness
obligation under common law should be contrasted with the slightly qualified duty arising
under contracts of carriage subject to the Hague-Visby Rules.38 At common law the
warranty of seaworthiness implies that, when the ship sails at the beginning of the voyage,
she is seaworthy for the duration of the voyage. Thus if, at the moment of sailing, the ship is
not reasonably fit to complete the the carrier is liable for a breach of the warranty voyage, of
seaworthiness. However, the carrier is not liable if, although the ship was reasonably fit to
complete the voyage at the moment of sailing, she becomes unseaworthy during the course
of the voyage. The duty at 40 common law is not a continuing duty; it only arises at the
commencement of each stage of a sea carrier's discrete performance obligations. The vessel
must be seaworthy at the commencement of loading operations and each intermediate
stage of a voyage; where a voyage includes calling at several ports, the various intermediate
voyages between each port may be considered a separate stage," Accordingly, where a ship
is unseaworthy at the time of sailing there has been a breach of the warranty, even if the
ship has been repaired and rendered seaworthy during the voyage before the damage to the
cargo is caused.42 Where a voyage can naturally be divided into stages-for example, from
the port down river to the open sea, or from one bunkering port to another-the warranty of
seaworthiness is interpreted as a warranty that, when the ship sails on each stage of the 43
voyage, she is fit for the duration of that particular stage. There is then no breach of
warranty if the ship is not fit for the whole voyage when she sails on one particular stage,
provided that she is fit for the whole of this stage. The doctrine of stages has no application
to the warranty of seaworthiness in a time charterparty" and does not apply to contracts of
carriage gov- erned by the Hague-Visby Rules. The ship is deemed to sail on the voyage or on
a stage of the voyage, for the purpose of the warranty of seaworthiness, when it leaves its
moorings for the commencement of the voyage with its master having no intention of
returning. If the ship is unseaworthy the carrier is liable for any loss or damage caused by, or
contributed to by, the unseaworthiness. The carrier is not, however, liable if the
unseaworthiness played no part in causing the loss or damage or if the damage resulting
from the unseaworthiness was too remote.47 Although there have been conflicting
expressions of judicial opinion in the House of Lords, it appears that the warranty of sea-
worthiness is not necessarily to be construed as a condition precedent to a contract or as a
fundamental term of a contract. Where, in a time char- terparty for 24 months, the ship was
unseaworthy (by the drunkenness of the ship's chief engineer and other reasons), the court
held that the charterers were not entitled to treat the charterparty as repudiated when the
ship was not ready to sail throughout a period of some four months: instead the charterers
were only entitled to damages for breach of the charterparty." In contracts which are not
governed by the Hague-Visby Rules, the carrier may limit or exclude its liability for
unseaworthiness, provided that the provisions in the contract are unambiguous. An
ambiguous provision will, however, be construed against the carrier. Accordingly,
contractual terms excluding the liability of the carrier in general terms (or excluding liability
only for negligence) will be interpreted as not affecting liability for unseaworthiness;
similarly, contractual terms limiting the amount of damages recoverable by the cargo
owner,50 or even referring disputes to arbitration," may be interpreted as not extending to
damages or disputes arising from a breach of the implied warranty of seaworthiness, unless
the contractual term unambiguously extends to include liability arising under the implied
term. The onus of proof that the ship was unseaworthy rests on the cargo owner, although
the fact that the ship sinks, for no apparent 52 reason, soon after leaving port may be relied
upon as evidence that she was unseaworthy at the time of sailing.53 There is an implied
warranty by the carrier, arising at the time when loading begins, that the ship is seaworthy
for the purpose of taking on to it the goods to be loaded. This is distinct from the warranty of
sea- worthiness for the voyage, and has been referred to as a warranty that the ship is
cargoworthy, and fit for the reception of the goods." The warranty is implied in every
contract of carriage unless expressly excluded by words which refer unequivocally to
seaworthiness for loading" The warranty is that, at the beginning of the loading of goods for
the shipper concerned, the ship will remain cargoworthy for the duration of the loading. For
this 57 purpose, the beginning of the loading is the time when the operation of loading
begins and not when the goods cross the ship's rail." If the ship is cargoworthy at the
beginning of the loading, there is no breach of the if she becomes uncargoworthy before the
loading is completed." As the warranty that the ship is seaworthy for the voyage arises only
when warranty the ship sails, the fact that, at the beginning of the loading, the ship is
unseaworthy for the voyage is not a breach of warranty."At the beginning of the loading the
warranty is only that the ship is seaworthy for the loading of the cargo, not that it is
seaworthy for the voyage, In effect, loading is considered to be a separate stage of the
carriage obligation undertaken by the contract of carriage. Consequently where, after
loading, the ship pro- ceeds to a different part of the there port may be a warranty that, at
the time when the ship leaves the place of loading, she is seaworthy for the purpose of
moving to the other part of the port, as the movement in the port may be considered a
separate stage of carriage, distinct from the 61 loading operation." The warranty of
cargoworthiness is that the ship is cargoworthy for the purpose of receiving the particular
cargo to be loaded. There is therefore a breach of warranty if the ship is not properly
equipped with refrigerators to take the cargo, if it needs refrigeration. All relevant factors
must be taken 62 into consideration for the purpose of ascertaining whether the ship is
seaworthy for loading. However, circumstances will only be relevant where they are
pertinent to the loading operation, so that matters relating to voyage provisions (such as for
the crew and bunkers etc.) are irrelevant to the warranty of cargoworthiness for loading
(despite being highly relevant to the warranty of seaworthiness for the voyage). Where the
state of the ship is unfit both to receive the cargo and to carry the cargo throughout the
whole of the voyage (e.g. by reason of the vessel requiring fumigation which would injure
the cargo, or where the vessel has not been adequately fumigated after carrying diseased
cattle) there may be a breach of the warranty of seaworthiness for loading, as well as a
breach of the warranty of seaworthiness for the voyage. Where the Hague-Visby Rules apply
to the contract of carriage, the distinct common law stage of cargoworthiness is
encompassed by the
continuing qualified duty of seaworthiness, which is provided for in the Rules and arises on
the commencement of loading.64