[97] 193 -Patron's Responsibilities Toward His Crew Aboard a Vessel Leased for a Fee

The owner of a vessel who leases his vessel to another party for a specific fee must be very discriminating with whom he concludes such an agreement, because if the lessee should become insolvent, the crew would lose its wages. A mountebank or a cheat can more easily reach an agreement with a person of his own kind than with an honest person; therefore, a patron leasing his vessel to a person of such caliber would mislead the crew. Thus the crew after serving a short or a long time under such a master would have wasted their time, because he might disappear, and they would have served under a master who had become indebted to the owner of the vessel. If such a master should die or flee, the owner of the vessel shall be responsible for the wages of the crew and shall pay the crew for the entire period of service, unless he discovers some assets of the party who leased the vessel, [98] or who died, or who had gone into hiding.

If it should happen that the patron of the vessel in order to mislead the crew introduced some person as a guarantor of a loan, regardless of whether he is indebted to him or not, and if the patron should die, the loan guarantor or the person who shall be in the command of the vessel shall be required to pay the crew its wages, for no member of the crew can be deprived of his wages whether the patron of the vessel has died, or because of some subterfuge, or because the patron has deserted, or because the creditor demands his money.

194-With Certain Exceptions, the Patron Must Undertake a Planned Voyage

A master of a vessel who has agreed to carry cargo for a merchant or some other person cannot refuse to undertake such a journey personally if he failed to make such a reservation with the merchant. Should he refuse to proceed on a journey in spite of the insistence of the merchants, he shall be liable for all the damages suffered by the merchants, because the damages resulted due to his negligence. If the patron refrained from making the journey with the approval of the merchants, he shall not be held liable for any damages. Under such circumstances he shall designate a person who will in his stead carry out all the obligations he agreed to with the merchants; the navigator shall under oath inform the merchants that the person designated by the patron to take the command is actually qualified to replace the master of the vessel, and should such a person not be qualified, the patron must provide another qualified person to take his place.

To continue: A patron may refuse to undertake such a voyage on four accounts, namely: due to illness, in order to marry, in order to undertake a holy pilgrimage if he had taken an oath to undertake such a pilgrimage before he had contracted to carry such cargo, and because of a prohibition imposed by the authorities. Each of the above mentioned reasons must be authentic and not an attempt at deception, and none of these reasons relieve the patron of the responsibility to provide some other person to take his place as commander of the vessel, as has been stated before.

This article has been written because many merchants entrust their cargo to a patron of a vessel due to mutual friendship or because of the fame he enjoys as a capable master of the vessel. If a merchant had known that a patron would refrain from undertaking the journey, he would not have engaged the vessel and loaded his cargo aboard it, even if he had anticipated a greater profit than [99] the cost of shipping the cargo.

195-Foundering of a Vessel on Shoals Due to a Storm or Other Causes

If due to a storm or any other causes whatsoever, a vessel cannot avoid foundering on shoals or projecting rocks, the patron of the vessel in the presence of the clerk, the navigator, and the crew should immediately inform those aboard:

"Gentlemen, we cannot avoid shipwreck, and my conviction is that the owners of the vessel shall be held liable for the cargo and the owners of the cargo shall be held liable for the vessel."

If the vessel has been destroyed, the salvaged cargo shall be used to pay the patron the full value of the vessel as had been declared by the two learned persons who had been entrusted with the adjudication of the issue.

However, all the equipment and other effects of the vessel that were salvaged from the vessel that had met with such a misfortune, shall be evaluated, and this sum should be subtracted from the sum at which the vessel had been valued, this is to mean, from the value of the vessel determined by the merchants to whom the salvaged cargo belonged as well as the evaluation which had been made by the patron or the two persons well versed in these matters, as mentioned before. This amount the patron shall deduct from the amount he is to receive for his vessel, if the master of the vessel would not agree to such an arrangement, the salvaged equipment and tools shall be sold at an auction to the highest bidder, for the patron under all circumstances shall receive the amount at which the vessel was evaluated.

If the vessel was not wrecked but its hull had been pierced or it was damaged in some other way, the patron of the vessel shall be required to share, together with the salvaged cargo, in the cost of the repairs that will be necessary, in proportion to the amount at which the vessel will be valued.

Further, if the patron announced that the salvaged cargo would be [100] assessed for the damages suffered by the vessel and the merchants agree to this, and the patron did not accept any responsibility on the part of the vessel to share in the damage of the cargo, all the damages that resulted when the vessel foundered in the shoals or struck a rock shall be paid for by the salvaged. cargo. The patron of the vessel shall not be obligated to share in the resulting damages because he had not committed his vessel to share with the salvaged cargo in the payment of the damages, and the merchants had agreed to this.

There is no need to discuss an accident when a vessel is completely wrecked and to repeat what has already been stated above. Nevertheless, if the merchants had informed the patron that the salvaged cargo shall be used to pay the damages for the cargo lost, and the patron together with the majority or all the merchants agree to this proposal, the value of the cargo salvaged shall be apportioned proportionally for the cargo that had been lost. The patron of the vessel shall be bound to share in the damages in the amount he will have received for his vessel.

If it should happen that there are no merchants aboard the vessel, the patron may and should act in their name; whatever action he takes should be taken in full understanding with the clerk, the navigator, and the crew. Thus whatever the master of the vessel does under such circumstances will be as valid as if all the merchants had been aboard the vessel or as if all the cargo had belonged to him.

196-Shipwreck of a Cargoed Vessel

If a patron cargoed his vessel in order to carry it and unload it at some port designated in the agreement with the merchants to whom the cargo belonged, and during the journey a misfortune overtook the vessel and it foundered on the shoals, or was wrecked or damaged in some other manner, the patron shall be compensated in conformity with what had been agreed to between himself and the merchants before the misfortune occurred.

If the patron demands payment of the lading charges, he should receive them, provided a sufficient amount of cargo has been salvaged; if, however, no cargo is salvaged from the wreck, no one will be obliged to pay any of the shipping charges, since all the cargo has been lost. If part of the cargo is salvaged and the master of the vessel demands payment of the lading fees for the cargo salvaged as well as for the cargo that has been lost, he should be paid the full amount, but in such an event he shall be required to share the damages for the cargo lost to the amount he had received in payment of the lading charges and in proportion to the value of the cargo that has been lost.

If the patron of a vessel demands and is paid the lading charges for the cargo that has been salvaged only, he shall not be required to share [101] in the damages resulting from the loss of the cargo because he has not been paid any lading charges for that part of the cargo.

If, however, there had been no agreement or an understanding reached between the patron and the merchants at the time the vessel foundered, was wrecked, or was damaged, the merchants will not be held responsible for any of the damages, unless they freely wish to compensate him for the damage to the vessel, because there had been no agreement made between them. They will, however, be required to pay the master the lading charges for the cargo salvaged, depending on the distance he had carried their cargo.

If there has been an agreement or an understanding reached between the patron and the merchants, the merchants are obliged to pay the damages to the patron of the vessel in conformity with what has been stated above, and the patron may retain a sufficient amount of the cargo as security until he is paid, and even a larger amount of the cargo in order that he will not be forced to pursue them and plead with them to collect the money coming to him.

No one can deny him this prerogative or demand that he accept some guarantor in lieu of the cargo or that he take some other cargo as a guarantee for his fees, and no court of law or anyone else should or can coerce him to do anything contrary to his decision in this matter.

197-Partial Unloading of a Vessel During a Storm and During Fair Weather

A vessel may reach the port where the cargo is to be unloaded during a storm or during fair weather. If it reaches the port on a day when fair weather prevails and unloads part of its cargo at a very low cost, and during the night or the next day a storm may develop and the unloading of the remaining cargo may cost one-half or two-thirds more than on the previous day when the discharging of the cargo began, the merchants whose cargo had been unloaded at a low price will not be required to reimburse the merchants whose cargo was unloaded at a higher cost, unless there had been an agreement reached among themselves that they shall aid one another in the cost of unloading all their cargo if the cost of unloading one part of the cargo was higher than the cost of unloading another part of the cargo, because this happened purely due to a mere circumstance that some of these merchants had their cargo unloaded at low cost and others at a much higher cost.

To continue: If a vessel has unloaded part of the cargo and a violent storm develops resulting in the loss of all the remaining cargo aboard, the cargo that had been unloaded prior to the storm cannot be held liable for the damages due to the loss of the cargo that had remained aboard the vessel, unless the merchants had agreed that all [102] the cargo carried aboard will share in damages to any part of the cargo. If there are no merchants aboard the vessel and the patron has decided that all the cargo be held liable for damage to any part of the cargo, his decision will be as binding as if all the merchants had been aboard and made such an agreement, or if all of the cargo belonged to the master of the vessel. The cargo is actually considered to be his, as it is under his care.

Should the vessel be wrecked or damaged, and the patron together with the merchants had agreed to make the cargo and the vessel mutually responsible for any damages to either, the salvaged cargo shall be required to share in the damages suffered by the vessel, as they had agreed. If there has been no such understanding or agreement reached, the party who has been damaged must assume such damage alone.

If there were no merchants aboard the vessel, and the patron together with the crew decided that the vessel and the cargo shall share mutually in any damages, this will be as valid as if all the merchants had been aboard the vessel or if all the cargo belonged to him; the cargo is actually his since it is in his care. If the master of the vessel made such a decision without the advice and consent of the majority or all of the crew, such a decision will not be valid. Therefore, all masters of vessels should beware that whatever they decide be accepted as binding.

198-Cargo Waterlogged Due to Negligence of Boatmen

Those who transfer the cargo by boat in the process of loading or unloading it, as well as those who work in transferring cargo on land, should perform their task well and with care so that the cargo will not be damaged by water, spoiled, or be lost due to their carelessness. Should the cargo be lost, damaged, or spoiled but not as a result of their neglect, they shall not be required to pay any damages to the merchants whose cargo was spoiled, damaged, or lost, because it did not happen due to any fault of theirs.

To continue: if during the loading operations the bindings or ropes of unloaded or empty chests, bales, or crates slip off, and they can prove this, they will not be required to pay any damages to the owners of these chests, bales, or crates or for any other waterlogged, damaged, or lost cargo, because it was improperly bound.

However, if such cargo during loading or unloading operation should become waterlogged, damaged or lost due to their negligence, they shall be forced to pay the damages to the merchants to whom the cargo belongs. Should they be incapable of paying, the burden will fall upon the party who was in charge of transferring the cargo by boat, if he has the means to pay such damages; if he does not have the [103] means he shall be seized and detained in prison until he is able to reimburse the merchants whose cargo was waterlogged, damaged, or lost due to his negligence or the negligence of the people employed by him aboard his boat, or working with him, because he will profit from this operation to the same extent as those working for him or even to a higher degree It is therefore proper that he who will share in the profits, should also share in the damages.

Therefore, all those in charge of boats should be very careful whom they hire. If these people perform their task well, he shall realize his share of the profit. If they do it improperly or carelessly, the whole responsibility will fall upon him who is the owner of a boat, because the merchants will not make demands upon those workers whom they do not know, but upon the one who is the owner of the boat.

For that reason, everyone who is in charge of a boat should be careful what type of workers he hires to load and unload cargo off the vessel into his boat, in order that he does not suffer any damaging consequences.

199-Loading or Unloading of a Vessel for a Flat Fee

He who is in charge of a ferrying boat, as well as the men working at moving of cargo to shore, when they have agreed to cargo or unload a vessel for a fixed fee or a specified amount of money, are required to accomplish this quickly, properly, and conscientiously. If they complete this task properly and conscientiously as stated above, the merchants or the patron of the vessel acting in their stead shall pay them the amount agreed to immediately and in full upon the completion of the task, without any disputations. If, on the other hand, the merchants delay and dispute this payment, and due to this the boatmen or the men who worked on shore transferring such a cargo should suffer some loss or expense, such merchants or the patron of the vessel who had acted in their stead shall pay all the losses and expenses due to their refusal to pay the agreed sum of money on time.

Thus in this manner the merchants or the patron shall proceed without causing any trouble, if the boatmen have completed their task as stated above.

To continue: if the merchants or the patron of the vessel suffered any damages or were forced to undergo some expense due to the negligence of those ferrying the cargo by boat of working on the shore in handling the cargo, and they should fail to complete the cargoing or unloading of the vessel according to the provisions of the agreement, the boatmen or those handling the cargo on shore shall be liable for all the costs, expenses, and damages that the merchants or the patron of the vessel who had acted in their name had suffered due to their negligence, and they shall reimburse the merchants or the patron [104] without any dispute.

If, however, they are unable to reimburse them for their losses, they should be seized and turned over to the proper authorities, and they shall be kept in prison until such time that they repay the merchants or the patron who acted in the name of the merchants all the losses that they had suffered or until they reach some agreement satisfactory to the merchants or the patron who had acted in their stead.

200-Vessels Lying at Anchor in the Order of Their Arrival in the Port

If behind the vessel that first dropped anchor in a port, at a sand bar, shore, or pier another vessel drops anchor, it should be moored in such a way that it will cause no damage to the vessel that first dropped its anchor at that point. If in mooring it some damage should result to the first vessel, the owners of the second vessel shall pay for the damage without any dispute.

However, if the second vessel arrived during a storm and could not be moored without causing damage to the first vessel moored, damages will not be paid for the damage caused since it did not result due to any negligence. In case of damage committed under such circumstances the issue shall be submitted for arbitration to learned people well versed in the art of sailing.

201-More of the Same

A vessel that reaches a port, a pier, or a shore and drops anchor and causes some damage to a vessel that arrives or moors later, will not be held responsible for repairing of the damage, if such a vessel was short of mooring ropes, or if it had used up all the mooring lines it had aboard and did everything else possible to avoid an accident, or if the vessel was moored at a place where it could not under any condition borrow or rent any mooring lines, and if the storm buffeted it so violently that the vessel could not be anchored properly. If under such circumstances it has caused some damage to another vessel, it will not be obligated to make repairs aboard the damaged vessel.

On the other hand, if this vessel had lines that were borrowed or rented, or if it was located in the area where the patron can procure such lines, or, finally, if those aboard the vessel that reached the anchorage later, warned those aboard the vessel that had arrived earlier that they should moor their vessel more solidly in order that it would not cause damage because the weather was inclement and there was danger of a storm, and the crew of the vessel moored earlier replied that they would not add any more anchor lines to make [105] the vessel more secure, and there came up a storm of which the crew of the second vessel to reach the port had warned the crew of the first vessel that had dropped anchor in the port, and the second vessel was damaged, the first vessel should pay for all the damages caused by it, because the crew of the second vessel that dropped anchor had cautioned and warned the crew of the first vessel of the impending danger.

Nonetheless, if the first vessel to have cast anchor used up all its mooring lines and undertook all possible means to safeguard itself, regardless of the fact that it was moored at a location where it could procure additional mooring lines, it would not be responsible for any damages that it would cause. No one can indeed suppose that the patron of the vessel, who had an opportunity to rent, buy, or borrow additional mooring lines would not have done so had he thought it was necessary, and would rather lose all that he possesses just to cause damage knowingly to another vessel. No one should suspect nor believe this.

This article was written for the reasons listed above.

202-Explanation of the Preceding Article

If some vessel is the first to drop anchor at some specified place, a vessel that reaches this place later must drop anchor in such a way that it will not cause any damage. If, however, it should cause some damage, it shall be held accountable for it in conformity with what has been stated, explained, and specified above.

To continue: The above shall be interpreted in the following manner: that the first vessel to drop anchor will not move its anchor or its mooring lines inward or outward of the shore after the newly arrived vessel has been moored. If the first vessel moored should move its anchor or its mooring lines after the arrival and anchoring of the second vessel, and suffer some damage, the vessel that was moored later shall not be liable for all but for only part of this damage, because it was the first vessel that moved its anchor or its lines either inward or outward of the shore.

Whatever damage was caused by the later moored vessel to the earlier moord vessel shall be given to arbitration of learned persons well versed in the art of sailing. They together with the advice that will be given to them by the Elders of the Sea Corporation and with the examination of their conscience, will be capable of deciding justly and properly the extent of the damages, in order to prevent greater damages and more serious misunderstandings from arising between the patrons of the vessels and other interested parties in this dispute.

On the other hand, if the earlier arrived vessel did not more or change its anchor and mooring lines either inward or outward of the shore, the later arrived vessel will be responsible for the repair of [106] all damages caused, as was stated and decided above.

To continue: if after the later arriving vessel has been moored, it moves its anchor or its mooring lines, and as the result of this change in its anchorage, the vessel that arrived earlier suffers some damage, the responsibility for the repair of all the damage must be borne by the second vessel moored because it moved its mooring lines and anchors.

If, however, the first arriving vessel moved its lines and anchors more inward or more outward and the vessel that was moored later did not move its lines and anchors nor change its position in any way, the latter vessel shall not be held responsible for any damages, beyond the damages established and declared in the above statements.

Further, if, however, the earlier arriving vessel suffers any damage but not due to the negligence of the later arriving vessel, the latter will not be responsible for the payment of any damages suffered by the first vessel, as it was not due to the negligence of the vessel which arrived and was anchored later.

This article was written in order that all take care how they anchor their vessels so that they do not expose themselves, due to their conduct, to the above mentioned penalties. Let, therefore, all beware and be watchful, that whatever they do, they should do well and sensibly, so that they and others shall avoid the possibility of precipitating disputes due to such negligence.

203-Anchorage of Vessels

If one, two, or more vessels enter the port simultaneously, or anchor at a pier, shore, or some other spot, each of the vessels must drop anchor at such distance from the other vessel that under no circumstances could they cause damage to one another.

Further, if it should happen that a storm develops, each vessel must be anchored and moored securely and staunchly, and each vessel must take all possible steps in order to prevent damage to any of the vessels moored. If it should happen that during a storm one of the vessels lacking enough proper equipment collides with another vessel and causes damage, but the vessel that lacked some essential equipment had made every possible effort to be safely moored, and the equipment it had on board was of good quality and sufficient to take care of the needs of such a vessel or even a larger vessel, such a vessel cannot be called upon to pay the damage to the party that suffered it, as the damage did not result from the negligence of the vessel that lacked some equipment for the simple reason that the damage did not result due to the negligence of the vessel that lacked some equipment, and also because the party to whom the vessel belongs did everything in his power to moor the vessel securely, and even though there [107] was lack of some equipment, the equipment that was available on board was sufficient and of good quality, and capable of mooring the vessel if that size and even a larger vessel.

Therefore, for reasons listed above, such a vessel will not be required to repair the damage it had caused to another vessel. However, if the patron of the vessel aboard which there was lack of equipment did not moor the vessel strongly enough as he should have, or if the mooring lines aboard it were not sufficient to anchor a vessel of that size or even a smaller vessel, and because of this the vessel had caused some damage to another vessel, the master of such a vessel will be required to pay for all such damages suffered by any vessel due to the poor quality or weakness of the mooring lines that the former vessel had aboard.

For those reasons every patron of a vessel should be careful and make sure that his vessel is moored properly, and should not keep aboard his vessel equipment that is insufficient in order that he avoid the penalties mentioned above.

204-Rental of Barrels

When a patron of a vessel has rented a number of barrels to use in a particular voyage or for a specified period of time, and the lessor stipulates that the patron cannot take possession of them or order some other person to take possession of the barrels until the rental has been paid as had been agreed, and that the patron must be personally responsible and accountable for them, and when the patron in spite of the imposed conditions, takes possession of such barrels and they are lost during the voyage or during the period of time they were rented for, the patron will be required to replace such barrels or pay their owner their value in addition to the full rental fee, not only for the period they were rented for or duration of the voyage, but also for all the time until he has satisfied the owner of the barrels.

Further, should the patron of the vessel who rented such barrels lose them through gambling, sell them, or lose them by his negligence, the procedure outlined above should be followed.

Further, if at the time of the rental of these barrels, their owner did not make any such stipulations to the patron of the vessel who rented the barrels, and subsequently they are lost, the owner of the barrels will have to suffer the loss, whether the patron of the vessel paid or did not pay any rental fee on such barrels, provided that the loss of these barrels did not result due to the causes mentioned above, that is, due to the fault of the master of the vessel and that the owner had not made such stipulations The rental fee for the barrels shall not be included in that loss, for whether the barrels are lost or not the rental fee shall be paid to their owner. If the barrels have been [108] lost due to the causes mentioned before, the patron of the vessel shall pay full damages to their owner.

If the owner of the barrels and the patron of the vessel could not reach a satisfactory agreement, the matter should be referred to two Elders of the Coopers Guild, who have seen these barrels and are experts in the cooperage trade, and whatever they determine under oath to be the amount due to the owner of the barrels from the patron who rented them will be decisive with this stipulation, that the rental on the barrels shall be paid in the full amount agreed.

205-A Shipment of Wine

A patron of a vessel who agreed to carry a cargo of wine for the merchants and promised to supply them sufficient number of barrels to accommodate the cargo, shall proceed in the following manner: He shall above all see to it that the barrels are made clean, then he shall order the crew or some other persons to fill them with water before they are loaded aboard the vessel; when they are filled with water he should show these barrels to the merchants or to persons acting in their stead for examination, asking them whether in their opinion these barrels are of proper variety and sufficiently leakproof, and if they desire that these barrels be loaded aboard the vessel.

If the merchants or persons acting as their representatives signify that they believe these barrels are leakproof and that they may be loaded aboard the vessel, and after they are loaded aboard and filled with the wine, then these barrels should leak and lose a certain amount of the contents, the patron of the vessel shall not be obligated to pay any damages whatsoever, because there is no negligence on his part, and because he had shown the merchants the barrels filled with water, and, finally, because he had loaded them aboard the vessel with their approval or the approval of their representatives who had stated that they considered the barrels sufficiently leakproof.

In such a situation the merchants are required to pay the full amount of the lading fees as agreed, for the wine that had been salvaged as well as for the wine that had leaked out, for the wine did not leak out due to any negligence on the part of the patron.

To continue: If the patron of the vessel had agreed to supply the merchants with the barrels, as stated above, but neither he nor his representatives showed these barrels to the merchants in order that they might ascertain if these barrels were watertight, and had loaded them aboard the vessel without the inspection by the merchants, and then the merchants suffered some damages due to leakage of the wine, the patron of the vessel will be forced t pay them damages, while the merchants will not be required to pay the lading charges for the wine lost, because they had not been given the opportunity to ascertain if [109] the barrels were watertight.

If however, the patron of the vessel had not agreed to supply the merchants with the barrels in which to ship their cargo as had been contracted for, because these merchants had their own barrels or had procured such barrels somewhere else, whether such barrels will or will not be watertight, and if some or all of the wine leaks out of these : barrels, the merchants will be required to pay the full shipping costs as had been agreed when the cargo of wine had been loaded aboard the vessel, and this they must do without any argument or opposition.

This article was written for the reasons discussed above.

206-Rental of Equipment

A patron of a vessel who leased some equipment in order to undertake a voyage will not be required to pay the owner of such equipment any damages for the loss of such equipment, if the loss does not occur due to his negligence. He will, however, be obligated to pay the rental fee on the equipment.

To continue: If the loss of the equipment resulted due to the negligence of the patron, he will have to compensate the owner of the equipment for the full value of such equipment as it was evaluated at the time he leased it, or he shall replace such equipment with equipment of the same quality and in the same condition as the equipment he borrowed.

To continue: If such equipment was damaged or destroyed due to the negligence of the patron, he will be required to pay the damages in the manner stated above. If, however, the damage or breakage occurred not due to any fault on his part, he will be required to pay only the rental fee, as was stated before.

Nevertheless, if the owner of such equipment, who rented it, set a value on the equipment or made some other stipulation, and the patron of the vessel accepted such equipment with these stipulations, he will be required to pay the owner the value that had been stipulated or replace it with equipment of the same value. It will be left to the discretion of the owner of such equipment whether he will accept repayment or replacement for such equipment.

To continue: If the patron of the vessel took this equipment aboard his vessel on a journey other than stipulated at the time the equipment was rented, and during such a voyage the equipment was lost, the master of the vessel shall replace such equipment or pay the value it was worth at the time it was rented, no matter under what circumstances it was lost or damaged.

The rental on such equipment used on an unscheduled voyage should be paid on the same basis specified for the original voyage, and no matter what happens to such rented equipment, the rental fee must [110] be paid in full.

207 -Responsibility for Rented Equipment

The patron of a vessel who rented marine equipment, if such equipment is lost or damaged, will be required to replace such equipment with equipment of the same quality, or pay for it according to its value at the time of the rental. The owner of the equipment may decide whether he will accept replacement or cash payment.

Further, it is immaterial how the equipment was lost or damaged; it must be returned to the owner, and the patron who rented such equipment cannot enter any objections to this.

This article was written because many patrons of vessels rent equipment, and in the event that it is lost or damaged make all sorts of objections when the owner of such equipment demands its return. For the reasons mentioned above, a patron of a vessel should not and cannot enter into any controversy over this matter with the party who rented him this equipment.

208 -In Cases of Emergency Any Equipment Left on the Shore May Be Taken by a Patron of a Vessel

Any master of a vessel may take equipment that he finds left on the shore, if he needs it to moor his vessel, fearing an approaching storm, or if he finds himself in a dangerous territory, provided that this equipment will not be needed by the party to whom it belongs, who would need it to moor his own vessel. If the owner of such equipment left on the shore is on hand, he should be asked for permission to use it. If the owner is not on hand, the patron may take such equipment, provided that he immediately notify the owner if he can find him or his representative authorized to act in his stead. If the latter demands a rental fee, he shall be paid such a fee because the equipment was taken without his knowledge, but not for any ther reason.

Further, the patron who took such equipment must put it back where he found it as soon as the storm passes.

If the party to whom such equipment belonged suffered any damages or loss because of this, the patron of the vessel who had borrowed it shall pay all the damages and losses.

Further, if the equipment was lost or damaged in any way, the patron who borrowed it must make the replacement to the owner to whom it belonged with equipment of the same quality and value it had at the time it was borrowed, and he should do that without any hesitation or dispute. If the owner of the borrowed equipment refuses to accept replacement in kind and demands that he be paid in cash for such equipment, the two interested parties should attempt to [111] reach an agreement on this matter. If they cannot, the issue should be referred to two Elders of the Sea Guild, who have seen this equipment, and whatever they decide will have to be carried out, and neither of the parties to the dispute can register any objections.

This article has been written, in order that a patron of a vessel will be able to borrow the necessary equipment to moor his vessel securely without the knowledge of the party to whom such equipment belongs. If it was necessary that the patron find the owner before he could use such equipment, he would probably, due to the severe storm that had overcome his vessel, lose his vessel and everything aboard it before he could find him.

For the reasons explained above, the patron of a vessel can use any equipment that is left unattended on the shore without the knowledge of its owner, if he needs it in the circumstances explained previously

209-Rented or Borrowed Equipment

If a patron who borrowed or took equipment left on the shore in order to anchor his vessel, and took it along on one or more voyages without the knowledge and approval of the owner, and the latter due to this should suffer some damage or be forced to rent other equipment for his own use because his equipment had been taken by someone else, the patron who borrowed the equipment left on shore shall pay all the cost, expenses, and damages suffered by the owner of such equipment.

Further, he shall also pay the rental fee to the owner of such equipment, and the latter would be completely within his rights to demand a rental fee of whatever amount he chooses to set, and it must be paid without any opposition.

Further, whether or not the party who took such equipment without the permission of its owner should be turned over to the authorities as a common thief is completely dependent upon the party to whom the equipment belonged.

If the equipment was lost or damaged, the party who took it shall be required to reimburse the owner in the amount determined by the owner personally, provided that he makes the estimate of its value under oath.

This article was written because many patrons of vessels would take equipment owned by others, if the above mentioned customs were not adhered to, and which are being used to arbitrate all differences arising in these matters.

210-Command of the Vessel During a Specified Voyage

Any merchant or sailor or any other person who accepts command [112] of a vessel for a specific voyage or to a specific place of destination, and during such a voyage or at the place of destination the cargo that he had accepted under his command is lost but not due to his negligence, shall not be required to replace such cargo or pay for the damages thereof.

Further, if the party who accepted the cargo under his command should proceed with such cargo to another place or port other than specified in the agreement and the cargo should be lost, he will be required to repay the entire loss to the party who entrusted such cargo under his command because he had taken the cargo to a different location or port of destination than had been agreed.

Further, if the party to whom the cargo was entrusted took it to another location or port than that specified in the contract and sold it at a profit, he shall turn over all of the profit made to the owner of the cargo, and cannot retain any part of it beyond what had been agreed at the moment he accepted the cargo under his command. Should he retain more than had been agreed to, he shall be treated in the same manner as if he had taken the money from the safety box of the owner of the cargo.

Should the cargo or the profit made on it be lost at the location where the party who had been given such cargo under his command was to make an accounting of the transaction to the owner of the cargo, the former shall be held accountable for all of the profit as well as the cargo entrusted under his command.

211-Restrictions Imposed Upon a Commander of a Vessel

If a party accepts command of a vessel for a specific journey to a designated port of destination, and having sailed away from the location where the agreement was concluded, arrives at the port of destination, and there is faced with pursuit by privateers or some other obstacles imposed by the local authorities, or threat of action on the part of unfriendly naval units, and due to these circumstances the cargo entrusted under his command is lost, he shall not be held accountable in any degree to the party who entrusted the cargo to his command.

However, if during the voyage and before reaching the place of destination, he had learned about the existence of the probable dangerous situation there, but in spite of this knowledge proceeded there, thus inadvertently allowing the cargo to be lost, he shall be required to pay full damages to the party who entrusted him with the cargo under his command.

If, however, the party who accepted command of the vessel had learned during the journey and before he arrived at the port of destination [113] of the probable existence of danger there, and was able to contact the owner of the cargo and make an arrangement with him to take the cargo to another location where there was no probability of meeting with similar dangers, such an arrangement shall be valid even though the new place of destination was not mentioned in the original agreement, for this reason, that those who take command of a vessel assume the position of merchants toward a patron of a vessel; thus for the three above mentioned reasons, anyone accepting command of a vessel, may proceed with the cargo to another destination than had been originally agreed upon, provided that he will do this in order to protect the cargo and nor for any other reason and that he will do this without any deceit or fraud.

However, immediately after reaching the destination that had been agreed to with the patron of a vessel during the voyage, the one who had accepted the command of the vessel should sell or exchange all of the cargo entrusted to him and return to make an accounting of the transaction to the party who entrusted the command to him.

If the above established procedures were followed but the cargo was lost, even though such a port had not been specified in the agreement with the owner of the cargo, the party who had accepted command of the vessel shall not be required to pay any damages.

On the other hand, if after returning to the port of origin, as we discussed above, but before giving an accounting of the transaction to the owner of the cargo, the party who had been entrusted with the cargo took it to another location, and the cargo was lost, the one in charge of the cargo shall be held responsible for all of the damage.

If, as we stated in the previous article, the party in charge of the cargo had made a profit on it, he shall pay the owner of the cargo both the profit and the price he had received for such cargo.

212-Explanation of the Preceding Article

In conformity with what has been stated, explained, and decreed in the previous article, any person taking command of a vessel for a specific journey or to a predetermined destination, if he has learned that at such a port there exists a probability of dangers mentioned previously, and for this reason fears to sail there, may after reaching an understanding with the owner of the vessel proceed to another destination where danger will not threaten; in spite of the fact that in the agreement concluded with the owner of the vessel this location had not been previously mentioned.

However, in that article it was not stated or explained that the patron of a vessel who carries his own cargo in addition to the cargo entrusted under his command may act in the same manner as others [114] who do not carry any personal cargo but only that which has been entrusted under their command, and whether such a party would be at a greater disadvantage. Thus, our ancestors had reached a conclusion and had decided that a master of a vessel who carries his own cargo in addition to the cargo entrusted to his command, or even one who does not have aboard any personal cargo but only cargo entrusted under his command, should not be at a greater disadvantage than any other person who had accepted command.

What are the reasons for this? Because many of those who accept command of the vessel do not have aboard any personal cargo but only that given under their command while they travel throughout the world. Further, if they were not entrusted with command of a vessel, they would amount to nothing. In addition, if the cargo is lost, they lose nothing because there was nothing in the cargo that belonged to them. On the other hand, regardless of what he transports, whether he carries any cargo of his own or not, the value of his vessel is greater than the cargo it carries that he had taken under his command; it would be, therefore, unjust that a patron of a vessel should be in a more advantageous position than any other party who had taken cargo under his command.

Further, it is an accepted fact that if there are aboard the vessel several other persons who had taken cargo under their command, the master of the vessel should consult with them concerning any dangers that may be imminent or may exist at the port to which they are bound; whatever they mutually agree upon and adjudge as proper shall be carried out and no one can oppose this.

Further, if aboard the vessel there was cargo that belonged to merchants who did not entrust this cargo under the command of the patron or any other person aboard but had only given the patron orders to release such cargo to a specified party at the port where it was to be unloaded, and if the patron of the vessel due to fear of dangers mentioned above refused to approach the shores of such territory, he should not carry the cargo to another destination because he was not commissioned to sell the cargo, but rather, he should return the cargo to the merchants who had placed it in his care. A patron who would take such cargo to a nonauthorized location shall pay all the damages if the cargo is lost.

Further, if the patron took the cargo to another location and sold it there at profit, he shall be required to return to the place of the origin of the journey and pay the merchants to whom the cargo belonged the price he received for the cargo plus all the profit. The merchants shall be required to pay at least for all his expenses and losses that he had borne but not for any more unless they wish to do so willingly.

[115] Further, if the patron has aboard his vessel personal cargo in addition to the cargo entrusted to him to sell or if he does not have any personal cargo, but he was ordered to sell at his discretion all the cargo that he took aboard his vessel, and if this patron is fearful of approaching the shore where he was commissioned to sell the cargo, fearing the dangers that have been mentioned before, he may change the course of his vessel and proceed to another location where no dangers threaten; in such situations, however, the patron should act with the approval of the majority or all of the members of the crew.

If the majority or all of the members of the crew agree to his proposal without any degree of reluctance, that they are willing to sail to the place indicated by the patron, he may change his course and proceed there. If, however, the majority or all the members of the crew agree that the vessel should return to the port of departure instead, rather than to change its course and proceed to some other destination, the patron of the vessel should accommodate the crew. If he refuses to return to the port of origin but instead by the force of his authority changes the course of the vessel, and due to this all or part of the cargo is lost, the patron shall be obligated to pay the owners who entrusted the cargo to his care all the profit they declare the cargo and profit would have brought them, had the patron returned to the port of origin as the majority or all the crew members had advised him to do.

Further, if the patron of the vessel would act upon the advice of the majority or all of the crew members, he should not be required to pay any damages to the owners of the cargo if part or all of it was lost because he had proceeded with the approval of the crew; it is, therefore, only proper that the patron of a vessel should be able to alter the course of the vessel because he had been authorized by the merchants to use his discretion in respect to the cargo he had aboard, and if necessary he may with the approval of the crew throw such cargo overboard into the sea.

Due to the circumstances enumerated above, our ancestors provided these changes in order to prevent disputes that could arise in such matters. Everything that was stated above shall be carried out without fraud or deceit; if any subterfuge can be proved against the party who attempted it, he shall pay all the damages to the party aggrieved, without any delay and maliciousness.

213-Right of the Master of a Vessel to Dispose of Cargo Under His Command

If a person who accepts command of a vessel for a specified journey or designated port of destination is given the authority by the [116] owners of the cargo to dispose of it as he sees fit, as if such cargo was his own property, and after returning from such a trip leaves this cargo at some location because he is unable to sell it, and if he states under oath that he handled this cargo as if it had been his own, the owners of the cargo who entrusted it to the master cannot demand any more than the master had accomplished in the transaction with their cargo; they must also reimburse the master for any expense connected with their cargo as had been provided in the agreement they had concluded. ⁽¹⁾

However, those who had taken command of the cargo, if they left it anywhere, must make every effort to recover such cargo in order to return it to those who had entrusted them with it. All this must be done without any deceit or subterfuge, and the cargo must be returned to its rightful owners as soon as possible.

214-Additional Data Concerning a Commander of a Vessel

If a merchant or any other party had entrusted a person with the command of a vessel under the condition that the master shall take such cargo to all the ports where his vessel shall sail in hopes of selling it, and the cargo is lost, the owner of the vessel and cargo shall assume the liability for any damages that may result.

If, however, the master of the vessel who took the cargo under his command should lose it in gambling or squander it away with loose women, or lose it due to debauchery or due to negligence on his part, or entrust the cargo to another party and it should be lost, he shall be liable for all the damages resulting to the party who entrusted such cargo to his care, and must pay such damages without any opposition.

215-A Promise to Give Command of a Vessel Must Be Fulfilled

A merchant or any other person who made a promise to give command of a vessel to someone and made this promise in writing or in the presence of witnesses, cannot withdraw such an offer from the party to whom he made it originally. If he should want to withdraw it, and the party who had been promised such a command had incurred some expenses in connection with the promised offer or had leased a vessel in conjunction with such a promise, he should be fully reimbursed for any expenses and damages.

This article is written because a party who had been given a [117] promise of getting command of a vessel would not have engaged so large a vessel had not he depended on the promise made to him, but would have limited himself to engaging a smaller vessel, sufficiently large to expedite his own interests in getting ready to ship his own cargo on the journey that had been planned.

216-Additional Information on Commanders of Vessels

If a party is given command of a vessel, and having his own resources, he invested them at the place where the command was given him in addition to investing the money given him by others, and after arrival at the destination designated in the agreement, makes profit on the cargo in which his money had been invested, but makes no profit on the cargo of others who had entrusted him with the command, he shall be required to share the profit he made with the others who had made an investment in that journey.

If, however, he should lose only his personal investment in such a transaction, he will have to absorb the loss if the party who entrusted him with the command and gave him money to invest specified that the money was to be used only for a specific purpose.

If there had been no such stipulation made and he had lost both his own money and the money entrusted to him for investment by others, whatever profits or losses there were shall be divided proportionally to the amount of money invested by each party.

217-Money Entrusted to a Person

If someone entrusts a sum of money to a person with specific instructions to purchase a certain type of cargo, and the latter cannot find any such cargo for sale, he should find reliable witnesses who shall testify that he was unable to find such cargo, and therefore could not use the money given him to buy the specified cargo, in order to clear himself of any charges or accusations if other merchants had been able to buy the cargo he had been commissioned to purchase at the same place and the same time.

If perchance he was unable to prove that he was unable to find the type of cargo he was commissioned to buy and given money for, he shall be required to pay the party who entrusted him with such a mission the profit that would have been made if such cargo had been purchased in proportion to the amount of money the other merchants made in purchasing such cargo.

If he should use the money entrusted to him for other purposes in spite of the orders given to him by the party who ordered him to buy a certain kind of cargo, but he earns a profit on such a transaction, he [118] shall turn over all of the profit to the party who had entrusted him ~æ with the money. If on the other hand he had bought cargo other than I t ordered by the party who entrusted the money to his care, and should lose some or all the money in such a purchase, he shall be required to reimburse the owner of the money in the full amount because he had acted contrary to the orders he had received, for no one can have more right to dispose of the wealth of another person than he is given by that person.

If a person given money to make certain purchases was unable to make them and found himself in position to return this money to the party from whom he received it, but failed to do this, taking the money with him, and due to some unfortunate accident lost all this money, he shall be accountable for the full extent of the damage.

However, if he had not been able to return the money to the party who entrusted it under his care, and due to some unfortunate accident he should lose part or all of this money, the loss will be assumed by the party who entrusted him with this money because the loss was accidental and did not happen due to any negligence of the party who was entrusted with the money.

Everything that has been stated about money entrusted in the care of another person is similarly applicable to the care given to someone over cargo or other property, if such property is entrusted to another person accompanied by specific instructions.

This article has been written for the reasons enumerated above.

218-Command of a Vessel

If an owner of a vessel gives it over to command of another party in order that the latter may make a specific voyage, and if during such a voyage, while the vessel is sailing to or from the port of destination, or while anchored in the port of destination, the vessel is wrecked or damaged, the party who had accepted command of the vessel shall not be liable for any of the damages to the owner of the vessel, who entrusted it under his command.

However, if the party in command of the vessel changed the course of the vessel or undertook some other journey not included in the agreement that had been made between them, and if the vessel was wrecked or damaged, the commander of the vessel shall repay the owner of such a vessel the full value of the vessel plus all other damages that the owner had suffered. Should he be unable to pay such damages, he shall be imprisoned until he is able to satisfy the owner who had entrusted the vessel under his command; whether he is able to repay the owner of the vessel for the damages or not, the owner of the vessel is required to repay the shareholders their share in the [119] vessel as well as a share of the profit they are entitled to according to the amount of their investment in the vessel.

If, however, the command of the vessel was entrusted to a party with the full knowledge and agreement of the majority or all of the shareholders and the vessel was subsequently wrecked under the circumstances mentioned, the principal owner will not be required to pay the shareholders any damages, for the reason that every principal shareholder in a vessel should reach an understanding with other shareholders when he intends to turn over the vessel under someone else's command, provided this is to take place in the location where the majority or all of the shareholders reside. If, however, this was to take place where none of the shareholders of the vessel are present, he should not give the command of a vessel to any person except under the conditions explained above, namely, unless he becomes ill, or if he has contracted to carry a load of cargo to a destination where he personally fears some action by the governmental authorities will be taken against him, or if he has become engaged before he contracted to carry a shipment of cargo, and his friends are forcing him to marry before he undertakes the journey, or if he is about to undertake a pilgrimage to a holy shrine, which he had taken a vow to make before he contracted to carry the cargo; all of this shall be done without any attempt in subterfuge or deceit.

219-Command of a Vessel Given Without the Knowledge of Its Shareholders

If the principal owner of a vessel entrusts it under the command of another party without the knowledge of its shareholders, and the latter after completing the voyage returns and gives an account of the transactions during the voyage to the party who gave him the vessel to command; and if the latter in turn pays each of the shareholders his share of the profit due him on the basis of his shares in the vessel; and if the shareholders accept their shares of the profit due to them on the basis of the amount of their investment in the vessel, and then some or all of them inform the party whom they had made the patron of the vessel that they do not wish him to give command of this vessel to anyone without their approval; and if contrary to this stipulation the patron of the vessel proceeds to do so, he shall be responsible for all the damages, losses, and expenses suffered by the vessel.

If, in the circumstances mentioned above, the shareholders after informing the person whom they elected the patron of the vessel in which they had invested their money, would give command of this vessel to another party without their approval, or at least the approval of the majority of them, he shall divide among them, proportionally [120] to the amount of their investment, all the profits made by the party to whom he had entrusted the command of the vessel.

If it should happen that the party who had been given command of the vessel under the circumstances described above should wreck it or damage it, the patron shall repay the shareholders all the damages they had suffered proportionally to the amount of their investment in the vessel, without any opposition whatsoever.

Further, if the shareholders knew and could see that the party they elected patron did not sail the vessel personally, but give the command of it to another person, and in spite of this agreed to accept their share of the profit earned by the party who commanded the vessel, and had not made any reservations about this matter to the patron, and if under such circumstances the vessel was lost or damaged, the patron of the vessel shall not be held accountable for the damages because the shareholders knew that he himself was not commanding the vessel, but gave the command of it to someone else, and mainly so because the shareholders had shared in the profits made by the vessel after completion of each journey due to them as part owners of the vessel.

It is therefore just and proper that if they took their share of the profits, although they knew that the person elected by them as the patron did not command the vessel personally, but entrusted the command to another party and if they did not reproach the patron about this, but with great satisfaction accepted the profits that the patron shared with them, therefore in the same spirit that they accepted the profits that the patron shared with them, they should accept the losses, damages, and diminution of income that the Almighty God had visited upon them.

This article was written for the reasons listed above. The contents should be interpreted, however, in the following manner: that the patron of the vessel resides in the place where all or the majority of the shareholders are domiciled, otherwise he cannot and should not entrust the command of the vessel to another person, except under the conditions explained and decided upon in one of the former articles.

220-Acceptance of Responsibility Individually or Collectively

If a patron of a vessel had accepted cargo belonging to a trading association in addition to accepting merchandise or money entrusted to his care by an individual merchant, and at the moment of acceptance of such cargo or money failed to inform the merchant that his cargo or money will be added to the cargo or money entrusted to him by the association, or did not make a written deposition that the money and cargo of such an individual must be considered as part and parcel [121] of the cargo owned by the association that he had taken aboard his vessel, he shall be held individually responsible for the cargo or the money entrusted to his care by the individual merchant.

If he has been given cargo to sell, he shall pay the merchants the full amount he received for such cargo. In addition, he shall have discretion in purchasing cargo for money that has been entrusted to his care for this purpose, unless he was specifically ordered that the money received from the sale of the cargo not be used for any other purpose or that he only buy specific cargo for that money, as had been mutually agreed.

If he has been given money to buy certain cargo, he shall make a full accounting of what he had bought for the money he received from selling the cargo he carried, as well of what disposition he made of the money he had received. He shall make such an accounting after returning from the voyage and will return to the merchants all their money invested and profit made in such transactions, after deducting the compensation due him as had been mutually agreed.

It is actually immaterial to the patron of a vessel, who entrusted its command to another party, whether the association makes any profit or suffers a loss in such an arrangement; the person accepting the care of such cargo is merely required to make account of it. If in pursuance of his command of the vessel, he makes profit or suffers a loss, he merely makes an accounting to the patron who entrusted him with the command of the vessel of profits and losses, since he is not obligated to the association, as he had accepted command of the vessel not from the association but from another party, unless he had informed the association that he shall be responsible mutually to the association as well as to the patron who gave him command of the vessel.

The party accepting command of a vessel is not obligated to the association in any way whatsoever, regardless whether they make profit or suffer losses, and the members of the association are not obligated in any way toward the party who accepted command of the vessel. Whatever losses or profits he incurred concern him personally only.

If, however, it should happen that he accepts the responsibility for the cargo belonging to the association as well as accepting command of the vessel, and should mix the cargo belonging to the association with the cargo belonging to the party who entrusted the command of the vessel to him without informing the party who gave him command of the vessel about this, and due to this shall not be able to make proper accounting, the party who entrusted him with the command of the vessel can demand payment for his cargo at the highest prices that such cargo commanded at the place where it was sold as well as the highest [122] possible lading charges for the cargo carried aboard and the highest potential profits that could have been made selling the cargo. However, the party who accepted command of the vessel must give full satisfaction to the patron who entrusted him with the command, because he had mixed his cargo with the cargo of the association without the knowledge of the patron. The party who commanded the vessel must make this adjustment without any argument or opposition.

221-Loss of Cargo and Bankruptcy of the Party Who Accepted Responsibility for Such Cargo

Any person who accepts responsibility for any property, and such merchandise is lost due to the circumstances mentioned in preceding articles, ⁽²⁾ shall not be responsible to repay such damages. If, however, the cargo taken under his care was lost due to other reasons than those mentioned above, he shall be required to pay the damages plus all the probable profit that would have been made on the cargo, unless he can show an acceptable reason for the loss of the cargo.

If he cannot demonstrate and prove an acceptable reason why such cargo was lost, and cannot replace such a cargo similar to the cargo given in his care because he is penniless and has become bankrupt, and he can be apprehended, he should be bound in chains, jailed, and kept in prison until he can reach some agreement with the party who entrusted such cargo to his care.

This article has been written because there are many persons who upon accepting responsibility for a cargo would steal it, if they knew that as a result they would not be faced with a penalty, loss, or diminution of their wealth; that is why the above resolutions were adopted.

222-A Patron Who Neglects the Vessel in Order to Attend to His Personal Affairs

If a patron of a vessel transports his own cargo in addition to other cargo entrusted to his care and cannot remain at the port where the vessel docked in order to sell his cargo, and if the vessel is ready to depart from that port but is delayed waiting for him to give the order to unfurl the sails, and if due to such a delay the owners of the vessel will have been put to some expense, the master of the vessel shall reimburse them from his own cash box, if he should remain at the port where the vessel was cargoed in order to sell his personal cargo without the knowledge of the shareholders of the vessel, and in the meantime the vessel had sailed, he shall be held accountable to the shareholders for any damages that may have been suffered by the [123] vessel. If, however, he had reached an understanding with the majority or all of the shareholders that he could remain behind while the vessel sailed, and the vessel should suffer some damage, the patron of the vessel shall not be required to pay any of the damages suffered by the vessel to its shareholders.

Further, if the patron of the vessel had remained behind to collect on the lading charges due and not for any other reason, and due to this necessity of remaining behind, he had dispatched the vessel in order to avoid some expenditures, and the vessel so dispatched should suffer damages, the patron will not be obligated to pay these damages to the shareholders because he had remained behind in the interest of the vessel and not for any other reason. He shall act without any attempt at deception or fraud.

223-Summoning of the Members of the Crew to Act as Witnesses in Arbitration of a Dispute Between the Patron of the Vessel and the Merchants

If a patron of a vessel is involved in a dispute with the merchants, the crew aboard the vessel when this dispute took place shall not be called as witness by either side of such dispute to the benefit or detriment of either party. The ship's register shall constitute the basis for the testimony offered by both parties involved in the litigation. If the vessel has completed the voyage and the sailors have been discharged and are no longer in the service of the patron of the vessel, they can offer testimony for the patron or the merchants provided they are the disinterested parties in the dispute in which they are to offer evidence, and provided that they shall not profit or suffer any damages out of this dispute. If they could benefit or suffer damages as the result of the final settlement of such a dispute, their testimony shall have no validity, and they themselves shall be adjudged as perjurers.

1. If the price set by the merchants for their merchandise was too high, the patron would return with it unsold.

2. These circumstances were detailed in Articles 211 and 212.