[203] 283-Liability of Shareholders

If a party undertakes to build a vessel and asks others to buy shares in such a venture, and these persons agree, they shall be required to keep their promise. If the party who had undertaken this venture by others had failed to inform these shareholders whether the boat shall be large or small, or the shareholders had failed to ask him about the size or cost of such vessel, or the length or capacity of such vessel, they shall be required to participate as they had promised regardless of the size of the boat that will be built, whether it shall be small or large.

Further, if the party who had undertaken the construction of a vessel, or will undertake it, had informed the prospective shareholders about the type of vessel that shall be built and had given its dimensions and cost, and then would order a larger sized boat be built without informing the shareholders about this change, the shareholders shall not be required to increase their holdings in such vessel but shall only be liable for the amount they had originally agreed to invest.

If the vessel would appear to be bigger and costlier than it had been estimated, the shareholders shall only be liable for the amount they originally agreed to invest in it; they are entitled to this because the patron had caused a larger vessel to be constructed without their knowledge and approval. If, however, the patron ordered that a larger vessel be built with the approval of the majority or all of the shareholders, they shall be liable for all the additional expense, as has been explained and discussed in one of the earlier articles. ⁽¹⁾

Further, if the party who intended to construct a vessel had informed and explained to the prospective shareholders that he intends [204] to construct a boat but instead he ordered a smaller vessel be constructed, without the knowledge and approval of the persons who had promised to invest in a boat, they shall not be obligated to fulfill their promise, because the party who initiated this undertaking failed to fulfill his part of the agreement. It is, therefore, only proper that since he failed to keep his promise, his partners be released from fulfilling their obligation.

Further, if, however, this party had a small vessel constructed with the full knowledge and approval of the majority or all of the investors, the latter shall be liable for the full amount of their investment, because the patron had acted with the consent of the majority or all of them.

If it should happen that a party had promised the prospective shareholders that he shall have a small vessel constructed, but actually he shall proceed to have a large vessel constructed, undertaking this without the authority of these shareholders, the latter shall not be required to fulfill their obligation to invest in this venture, unless it should happen in this manner, that for the same amount they had promised to invest in a small vessel they shall have a large one constructed. We should exclude a situation that had been anticipated in one of the previous articles in which we discussed the patron who attempted to build a small vessel; we should also keep in mind the explanation given in that article.

The above information relates to every vessel, small or large, that will be newly constructed, and pertains to it until the newly constructed vessel leaves the locality where it had been constructed.

This article was written for the reasons given above.

284-Cargo Tossed Overboard

If a master of a vessel, upon the demand of the merchants, drops anchor in some locality, and while at anchor the vessel is overtaken by a severe storm, so that the vessel will be not only unable to hoist anchor and sail away from that locality, but it will be necessary to throw overboard most or all of the cargo aboard in order to save the vessel, under such circumstances of the necessity of throwing cargo overboard, neither the patron shall have any responsibility toward the merchants nor the merchants toward the patron, regardless of whether the merchants order that the cargo be tossed overboard or whether they personally tossed the cargo overboard without notifying the patron about it, or whether the patron orders that the cargo be thrown overboard or throws it out himself without informing the merchants about it, for this reason: tossing of cargo overboard under such conditions cannot be considered in the category of an ordinary [205] situation when cargo is thrown overboard, but in the same sense as if the vessel was wrecked and the cargo was lost; therefore, under the conditions described above neither party can make any claims regarding the cargo. ⁽²⁾

The value of the cargo thrown overboard under such circumstances shall be evaluated proportionally as to quantity and quality, and the vessel shall share in the loss of such cargo in the amount up to two-thirds of its value. If the incident of the necessity of throwing cargo overboard was not of this category, the vessel would have been liable up to half of its value for the damages, but in the situation explained above, it shall share in the damage up to two-thirds of its value, because this was not due to the total destruction of the vessel. If the vessel had suffered complete destruction, it would be required to share in the damage up to its full value.

Why should a vessel share in the damages up to two-thirds of its value under such circumstances? Because there was no shipwreck nor an ordinary instance of throwing of the cargo overboard, but rather a situation that closely resembles a shipwreck, rather than some other reason for throwing of cargo overboard.

If it should happen that a vessel should lose some equipment, such as anchors, lines, boats, or any other equipment, all this shall be proportionally evaluated, because this is not a matter of simply throwing of cargo or equipment overboard, and therefore the matter cannot be treated in the same manner, for such a situation more closely resembles a shipwreck than a mere throwing of cargo overboard. In a typical situation when the cargo must be thrown overboard, a loss of a boat tied aboard the vessel or tied to its gunwales, due to the break of its lines or lack of sufficient ropes to tie it securely, would be the patron's responsibility, as he is to see that proper ropes are used to secure such boat. Similarly, in a case of an ordinary necessity of throwing cargo overboard due to the loss of anchors because of weak anchor chains or lack of enough anchor chains, the loss would have to be assumed by the vessel, and no merchant or any of his cargo left aboard the vessel would be under such circumstances assessed for the damage that had taken place.

Further, if any merchant would throw overboard or order anything thrown overboard without informing the patron and without the patron's knowledge, neither the patron personally nor his vessel shall be liable to share in such damage, unless he would wish to do so, if the patron can show and prove that this was a case of an ordinary instance of throwing cargo overboard, regardless of the fact whether [206] the vessel was at anchor or was under sail.

If it should happen that the patron of a vessel, in spite of the fact that the merchants are aboard his vessel, or even just one merchant is aboard, throws overboard some cargo without their knowledge and approval, he shall be liable for the damages the merchants had suffered due to his action of tossing cargo overboard. The above should be interpreted in this manner: that it can be proved that this was just an ordinary case of throwing cargo overboard, and this happens when there is no storm endangering the vessel and that all parties concerned are able to communicate with each other about such matters.

Further, if there are no merchants aboard the vessel, the patron may order the cargo thrown overboard with the approval of the majority or all of the crew members, if he has time to ask their assent to this. If, however, a storm should overtake them suddenly, and the patron ordered the cargo tossed overboard without being able to get the assent of the persons mentioned above, this action will have the same validity as if the patron had been able to get such assent from the crew or if the merchants were aboard, or if all the cargo belonged to the patron personally; the cargo aboard his vessel can actually be considered as his property, as it was entrusted to his care.

Further, after the cargo had been thrown overboard, and regardless whether the storm had somewhat abated or had completely spent itself, or if it is still continuing, and the vessel departs the locality where the misfortune happened with the consent of the merchants, and with their consent the vessel also abandons part of its equipment, the value of such equipment, if it is lost, shall be paid for by the merchants upon the evaluation of their cargo aboard the vessel as well as the vessel that shall share in this damage to the extent of half of its value, regardless of the fact whether aboard the vessel there is enough equipment left to enable the vessel to sail safely to the locality where it was to unload its cargo.

If it should happen that the above mentioned equipment is not lost, but is recovered, and that it had been salvaged at some cost, these expenditures shall be borne in the same manner as had been prescribed in the situation when such equipment had been lost; however, the above stipulation should be taken to mean that the tossing overboard of such equipment was not of the ordinary kind, but rather similar to a situation of a shipwreck.

If this had been an ordinary incident of dumping cargo overboard, and not a situation closely akin to a shipwreck, and if under such circumstances the patron of the vessel, upon the demand of the merchants had left such equipment aboard, as had been discussed above, ⁽³⁾ regardless [207] whether such equipment will be lost in part or completely, or if in order to salvage it some expense will be incurred, all the expense connected with this salvage shall be apportioned against the quantity and quality of cargo left aboard, and the vessel shall not share in such expenditures, because the vessel had already been sufficiently damaged, due to the fact that upon the insistence of the merchants it had left the locality and exposed itself to dangers sailing to the destination where the merchants demand that it proceed and to which the crew had agreed to proceed.

If it should happen that aboard the vessel there would not be sufficient equipment in order that the vessel could undertake to sail to the locality indicated by the merchants, the vessel shall return to the locality from which it undertook the voyage and at which it had been cargoed, and all the financial matters between the patron and the merchants shall be made at the location where the vessel took on the cargo and to which it subsequently returned.

The above shall be construed in this manner, that if the misfortune took place after completion of half of the journey, the financial transactions shall be made at the destination of the cargo at the prices prevailing in that locality, in spite of the fact that the vessel may have returned to the locality where it had taken on the cargo. If the misfortune happened before the vessel completed half of the distance to the location where the cargo was to be unloaded, the financial accounting shall be made at the location where the vessel had picked up the cargo, if the vessel returns to that place with whatever cargo remained aboard it. ⁽⁴⁾

If the patron of a vessel demands payment of the lading fees for the cargo that had been lost as well as for the cargo salvaged, he shall be paid as requested. However, these lading fees shall share in the payment for the cargo thrown overboard and lost. If, on the other hand, the patron does not demand payment of lading fees, and refuses to accept it even if offered, the patron shall not share in the resulting damages.

If the patron expects payment of the lading fees for the cargo that had been saved, he shall complete the journey with such a cargo, if he demands payment of the lading fees from the merchants.

If, on the other hand, the patron of the vessel does not demand payment of the lading charges for the cargo saved nor for the cargo lost, he will not be forced to complete the voyage if he shall not desire to do it, and this is only proper, as he had already lost enough on such a venture, expending his energy, his time, provisions, and [208] using his vessel. This shall be understood to mean the following: that the merchants are located in a territory free of any danger, in a friendly territory where they will be able to find another vessel that will be willing to take their cargo for a payment. An agreement reached by the patron with the merchants under such circumstances shall be binding upon the crew of his vessel.

This article was written for the reasons given above.

285-When a Vessel Is Forced to Hoist Anchor Due to Ill Fate

If an engaged vessel was to proceed to a designated locality to pick up cargo, and after the arrival of the vessel at this destination a violent storm would intervene before the cargo can be loaded aboard, that in order to save the vessel it will be necessary to hoist anchor, or this must be done because of the appearance of armed enemy vessels, or due to the information that had been received that enemy vessels are on the way toward the spot where the vessel was anchored; if because of one of these circumstances the vessel will be forced to sail without taking on the cargo in order to return to the place from which it had sailed and where it had been engaged to take on cargo, and the patron refuses the pleas of the merchants that he return for their cargo, when the storm had abated or a safe report is made concerning the movement of enemy vessels, but he demands payment of the lading fees agreed to at the time the contract was made, he shall be required to return for such cargo.

Should he refuse to return, he may be forced to do so by the legal authorities. If he still continues to refuse to return for the cargo, the merchants can engage another similar vessel to carry their cargo; if the lading fees charged by the second vessel the merchants hired are higher, the patron of the first vessel they engaged shall reimburse them for the amount of the difference in these fees. Should he refuse to pay for this difference in the lading fees, he shall be compelled to do this by the judicial authorities, even if it were necessary that his vessel be sold to satisfy such a claim.

In addition, the merchants shall not be obligated to pay the patron of the original vessel anything because he had failed to carry their cargo, and this situation had not developed of any fault of theirs. This should be understood to mean that if the merchants who had engaged the vessel failed to fulfill their obligations, which they had agreed to at the time the vessel was engaged to carry their cargo, or if the patron had to return from the voyage without a cargo by their fault or negligence, he is not obliged to return, but rather they shall pay him the lading fees, because he had to make the return trip for the cargo as result of their carelessness.

[209] If the merchants were not at fault, and the patron wished to return, but his crew is opposed to this and refuses to return, the crew cannot and should not act in this manner, because this situation had not come about out of the neglect of the patron or the merchants, but because of circumstances described above.

Further, if the vessel due to the circumstances mentioned left on the shore part of the cargo or some equipment or a few members of the crew at the location from which it had to depart, the patron should substitute other equipment and sailors for those left behind. If he refused to do this, the sailors cannot be forced to make the return trip against their own will, and the patron cannot force them to do this under any condition, by the fact that he himself refused to complete the necessary equipment and provide a full crew, as it has been stated above.

This is why the above article was written.

286 -Convoys

If a master of a vessel had decided to sail in convoy with one or several other vessels of similar or smaller or larger size, all the terms of the agreement relating to this arrangement whether entered into in writing or orally must be carried out.

This should be understood to mean that the existence of an agreement to sail in convoy shall be proved, and this can be done by the testimony of witnesses who had been present at the signing of such an agreement, or by an entry made by a clerk under oath, or by the introduction of the letter of agreement, provided that the date, the hour, and the place where such document was executed are contained within it. In addition, the document of agreement shall bear the seals of the parties who had agreed to sail in convoy if they were able to do so.

If the parties concerned were unable to formalize such an agreement in writing at the place where they were located at the time the agreement was concluded, and merely agreed orally to sail together in convoy, such an oral agreement shall be valid if the interested parties had agreed to everything that had been stated, as valid as if it had been executed in the presence of a clerk acting under oath, or if it had been made in writing according to private legal concepts, or if it had been entered into the ship's register. In case some dispute should arise concerning the interpretation of the terms of the agreement, it will be possible to ascertain its existence and its provisions by calling of witnesses.

If it should happen that one of the signatories to the agreement should refuse to carry out its terms, promises, and obligations relative [210] to sailing in convoy, the latter party, regardless of whether the agreement was made in writing or entered into orally, shall be liable for all the damages and losses of the other parties, provided that the aggrieved parties can prove the existence of such damages and losses.

In all circumstances where the fulfillment of the agreement had been frustrated by the intervention of fate, due to which one of the signatories could not remain sailing in the convoy, he shall not be held liable if he can prove his inability to fulfill the terms of the agreement because of intervention of forces beyond his control. ⁽⁵⁾ If, however, he could not prove the existence of such a fateful intervention, the party or parties claiming this in self-defense and being unable to prove this will be liable for all the damages as had been stated above, and shall reimburse the party or parties aggrieved without any dispute.

This article was written for the reasons given above.

287-When the Shareholders of a Vessel Entrust It to the Care of Another Party

If responsible people or merchants express a desire to invest in a vessel and entrust the party from whom they purchased their share in the vessel with its command, regardless of whether such a person has any investment in the vessel or not, he shall sail into all waters where he will have an opportunity to earn profit with this vessel, unless there had been other arrangements made between the party commanding the vessel and the merchants who entrusted the command to him at the time the agreement was made.

If the party who was entrusted with the command of the vessel made any profit, he shall be required to make an accounting of his transactions and pay these merchants and the above mentioned respectable people all the profit he made with the exception of the amount due him, proportionate to his investment in this venture. If he had no investment in the vessel, he shall receive the amount due him as the commander of the vessel, similar in amount to that received by masters commanding the same type of vessels.

If the patron or the person who was given command of the vessel failed to earn any profit, but on the other hand suffered some losses, the above mentioned worthy personages who had entrusted their vessel to him and made him its master must accept the liability for these losses unless they could prove that they occurred by his negligence, that he gambled the money away, wasted it, stole it, or managed [211] it very poorly. If they should be able to prove these charges against him, the above patron whom they entrusted with their vessel, shall be required to reimburse them for all their losses without any opposition in the amount to be determined by these worthy people arbitrarily who had entrusted their vessel to him or made him a shareholder of the venture.

If, on the other hand, they could not prove any such charges against him, as he had done everything that was within his power and had acted prudently and honestly, he cannot bear the responsibility for such consequences, and the accounting he makes of these transactions shall be accepted as valid.

If such a patron or person who was entrusted with the command of the vessel would take aboard his vessel a trusted clerk, who took an oath upon accepting this office, for if he did not take such an oath of office, the shareholders may question him and order him to testify under oath, and if the expenditures and losses shall be accounted for and in agreement with his testimony, or if the clerk states under oath that the accounting made is in agreement with his entries, his testimony shall be accepted as final, unless it could be proved that he testified falsely.

If it should be proved that the clerk testified falsely, he should be punished according to the penalty prescribed in one of the earlier articles, ⁽⁶⁾ while the patron or the party who had been entrusted with the command of the vessel shall reimburse these worthy people for their damages if the clerk had no means with which to pay these damages, regardless of whether the damage resulted due to the negligence of the patron or the party who was trusted with the command of the vessel, for this reason, because the patron as had been stated above had personally picked the clerk to serve aboard the vessel.

If, however, it could not be proved that the clerk had made false entries in his accounts, he shall not be punished as stated above, and neither he nor the patron of the vessel shall be liable for these damages suffered by the shareholders, if any damages can be proved, for the damages did not arise out of their negligence.

If it should happen that the patron did not hire a clerk who had taken an oath of office, or he lost the clerk and made the entries himself or ordered that some other person make these entries, the shareholders who had entrusted the vessel to his care, may, if they suspect any irregularity, require that the patron swear an oath to the effect that whatever statements he will make concerning the expenses shall reflect the true situation, and that these expenses actually amounted [212] to the sum he had entered or caused another party to enter in the register and reported to the shareholders.

If he makes these depositions under oath, they shall be accepted at face value unless it can be proved that they were falsehoods. In such a situation he shall be forced to pay all the damages in the amount decided by the parties mentioned before. If no attempt in deceit can be proved, his statement shall be accepted and his account judged accurate, regardless of whether it shows a loss or a gain, because it had not been his fault that he was unable to earn a profit.

It is only proper that if the shareholders had confidence in him when they made him master of the vessel, they should also have confidence in his accounts, whether these accounts show losses or gains, unless as had been stated before, they can substantiate the falsehood of his statements.

Thus, whether a patron of a vessel take on or not take on a clerk who had taken the oath of office, he shall not and should not suffer any damages, for the reasons explained above. Nevertheless, in every instance when the patron does or can take aboard a sworn clerk, it will be of great aid and relief to him; therefore, every patron should take aboard a clerk, if he can. This article was written for the reasons mentioned above.

288-When a Merchantman Is Intercepted by an Enemy Vessel

If a merchantman is about to be intercepted by an enemy vessel, and aboard the merchantman there is one or more merchants, the patron shall inquire of them if it is their desire that he attack, capture, and take over the enemy vessel. If a merchant or all the merchants or the majority of them express approval to his proposal, the patron may proceed to take this action and shall not be liable in any degree toward the merchants no matter how extensive their losses and damages may become, because these merchants had expressed their consent and approved the attack.

If the patron took the action mentioned above without the approval of the majority or all of the merchants, and if these merchants should suffer damages and losses or may suffer them later due to his actions, the patron shall be liable for all such damages and losses and must reimburse the merchants for them without any disagreement, even if it became necessary to sell the vessel and all his possessions wherever they shall be found, and this shall be done because the patron proceeded in this manner without the approval of the majority or all of the merchants.

If it should happen that the patron took such action, as had been described above, with the approval of the majority or all of the merchants, promising them a share in the booty he will capture, he shall fulfill this promise without any disagreement or protest.

If it should happen that between the patron of the vessel and the majority or all of the merchants there had been no agreement made or any promises made regarding the booty, but some booty shall be taken under the circumstances described above, it shall be divided in the following manner: the patron and the vessel shall be entitled to and shall take one-third of the booty; the merchants with their cargo are entitled to one-third part also; the remaining third shall be taken by the navigator, officers of the prow, sailors, and the rest of the ship's personnel serving aboard the vessel and drawing wages.

Further, from the three parts of the booty shall be subtracted the amount that is due as a reward and a prize for personnel of the vessel; these rewards shall be apportioned according to the judgment of the merchants, the clerk of the vessel, one officer of the deck, and two sailors of the prow. It should be understood that the booty whether large or small shall be divided proportionally. Under all circumstances, however, whether the booty is large or small, the patron and the vessel shall receive one-third; the remainder shall be divided among the persons mentioned above.

If the patron had taken the action discussed above without the knowledge and approval of the majority or all of the merchants aboard his vessel, but these merchants had not been damaged in any way, the patron shall not be obligated to give them a third of the captured booty, but only such a share as he considers proper, with the approval of the navigator, the clerk, and two sailors of the fore deck, and they shall apportion the part of the booty the patron decided was the proper share for the merchants according to the amount of cargo the merchants have aboard his vessel and according to the worth and status of each of them.

It appears absolutely proper that the merchants be satisfied with the share the patron had decided was due to them in the manner mentioned above, for this reason, that the patron would have been held responsible for all the damages suffered by the merchants, had they suffered such damages.

If it should happen that aboard the vessel there had been no merchants present when the patron had taken the action mentioned above, he shall not and cannot take any such action, for he legally has no right to do it. Should he dare to do this, nothing shall be said, if he had been successful in such an attempt. It will, however, depend on his generosity and good will what share of the booty he will be willing to assign to the merchants who had their cargo aboard his vessel; this will be a matter left entirely to his good disposition.

Further, should he fail in the attempt of his undertaking, he shall [214] be answerable with his person and his property to the merchants for damages they suffered, in agreement with what had been stated above, because these merchants were not aboard the vessel. There is still another reason for this, namely, a patron under such circumstances should not attempt any such action without the knowledge of the merchants, and it would not be proper that he would have the authority to do this, for he already has enough authority in regard to the cargo, and that is that he may in a case of necessity throw it overboard, or in case the vessel is wrecked if these incidents happen when the merchants are not aboard the vessel.

Further, if the above mentioned patron can show and prove that he had a misfortune brought on by act of fate, and by this we mean that he could not escape, that is, that the enemy vessel overtook his craft and held it with grappling irons, and if under such circumstances the merchants suffer damages, the patron shall not be responsible to pay them any damages whatsoever, because the damages were not the result of his negligence. It will make no difference in such circumstances whether the merchants are or are not aboard his vessel. There is still another reason for this, namely, that no person can circumvent acts of fate.

Therefore, for the reasons listed above this article has been written.

289-Agreement Concluded by a Party Entrusted with the Command of a Vessel

If an owner of a vessel entrusts another party with its command, and the party accepting the command reaches some agreement or makes some promises to the person or persons who entrusted him with this command and then fails to fulfill these promises, and the parties from whom he had accepted the command suffer by his neglect any losses or damages, he shall reimburse them for all such losses and damages, even if it became necessary to sell the vessel. This provision obtains only if the issue involves the vessel.

Further, if the party who gave the vessel to another to command had suffered or was in danger of experiencing some damage by the negligence of the party who accepted the command, the latter shall pay all the damages and losses, if he has the means to do this. If the party who had taken the vessel under his command had no property and was unable to pay for such damages, he shall be turned over to the legal authorities, and shall be detained for so long until he is able either to pay such damages or to reach some agreement regarding this matter with the aggrieved party; everything that has been stated above should be done without any deceit or fraud.

[215] Further, if the party who had accepted command of the vessel concluded some agreement or promised someone to do something and had failed to live up to his promises not to some fault of his own, neither he nor the party who entrusted the vessel to his care shall be liable for any damage to such a party to whom such promises were made, because the inability to carry out these promises happened without any omission on his part.

Let, therefore, everyone be most careful to whom he entrusts the command of his vessel and in what manner he does this, in order to avoid damages and not be liable in any manner whatsoever.

This article was written for the reasons given above.

290-Retaking a Captured Vessel

If a vessel after having been captured by an enemy craft is intercepted by a friendly vessel that had come upon the enemy vessel that had made this capture and as a result of this encounter the captured vessel is freed by the friendly unit, regardless of how this had been accomplished, the retaken vessel shall be returned to the owner or owners, together with all the effects aboard, provided the owners are alive, under the condition that the owners reward those who had rescued their vessel sufficiently and proportionally to the amount of trouble and expense they had suffered in doing this.

Further, the above should be taken to mean that the friendly vessel had recaptured the prize within the territorial waters and within the jurisdiction of the nation to which the prize belonged, or in some other waters or territory where the captors had not been able to moor the vessel, that is, to cast an anchor in a safe place; under such circumstances the procedure outlined above shall be followed.

If, however, the friendly vessel was able to retake the captured vessel from the enemies at a location where the friendly vessel had been properly moored and safeguarded, they need not be given a reward unless they themselves wish it, for the whole prize belongs to them, with everything aboard it, and no one can oppose this, and neither the local court of law nor anyone else can and should make any charges or claims against them.

Furthermore, if the enemy vessel that had taken such a prize noticed another vessel approaching and, fearing an encounter with such a vessel, abandoned the vessel that they had captured, and the vessel that caused the enemy craft to flee put aboard a prize crew on a vessel that had been abandoned, or took this vessel in tow in order to keep the booty, they shall return the retaken vessel to its proper owners provided these are still alive or to their relatives without any delay and reluctance, provided that these relatives will pay those who [216] saved the vessel and all the cargo aboard it a suitable reward, in agreement to what had been stated above, if they can reach a mutual understanding. If the two parties could not reach a compromise, the matter shall be given to the Elders for disposition.

Further, if anyone abandons his vessel due to the fear of enemy craft, and another vessel intercepts such an abandoned craft, puts aboard it a prize crew, and sails it to a safe location, this is to mean that those who took such a vessel did not recapture it from an enemy, and the latter had not yet succeeded in taking it away from its rightful owners, such a vessel and its cargo shall not belong to the party who found it; however, the party who found such a vessel under such circumstances may demand a suitable reward in conformity with the well established marine customs. If the two interested parties could not reach an agreement, the dispute shall be given to the disposition of the Elders, because dependence upon the wisdom, sense of justice, and honesty of the Elders is always beneficial. It is also proper that one party would not wrong another, which one of the parties would be capable of doing, because no one knows, cannot know, and cannot be certain when he himself may be exposed to danger and ill treatment at the hands of others; therefore everyone should bring disputes before the Elders for their arbitration and especially in cases such as we have mentioned above or similar matters, in order that neither God nor people could ever and under any circumstances accuse him of any wrongdoing.

Further, it should be remembered that everything that has been said above shall be done without any deceit or fraud because very often he who believes that he has cheated and wronged another actually wrongs himself, for no one knows what can happen to him and his kin; let, therefore, no one under any circumstances cheat, defraud, or damage another, for he does not know what fate holds in store for him.

Further, any person aware of the fact that a given vessel is to proceed or had sailed to a territory where danger from an enemy can be expected would sail such a vessel in hope of doing damage to it or any other vessel for the reward he might receive or in order to take over such a vessel with all its cargo, or for any similar reason, should it be proved that he sailed out for the reasons and purposes mentioned above, shall not in case of an incident be given any reward or any part of the cargo from aboard such a vessel, even if the owners of the cargo had thrown and abandoned such cargo, or if their enemies had captured such a cargo, unless he can prove that he had not sailed for the purposes and reasons stated above.

Further, if it shall be proved that the latter sailed in order to [217] wrong some specific person or any other party, whomever such a misfortune shall befall, for he is acting as an enemy would act, and even if he should bring in the vessel to a safe place, with or without the cargo, whether he found it abandoned or recaptured it from the enemy, as had been said before, he shall return everything to its rightful owner. Those who had sailed with the objectives mentioned above shall be imprisoned and turned over to justice, and they shall be treated as ordinary brigands, provided of course that the circumstances mentioned above shall be proved against them.

If it had been proved that they had not sailed with such evil intentions, and should they be able to retake a captured vessel from the enemy, or if they found an abandoned vessel under the circumstances mentioned above, their rights of salvage and reward shall be adjudged valid.

Further, should there be any doubt that these parties had sailed with evil intention mentioned above and if the accused were forced to disprove accusations made against them, neither the accused nor any of their fellow travelers or any other parties who could benefit or suffer in this issue, and finally, no person who is known by reputation of being avaricious, who could also be suspected of being easily bought, shall be allowed under any circumstances to offer any testimony in such an issue.

Further, if it should happen that the enemies after capturing the vessel or cargo abandon it of their free will and not from any fear of another vessel that they see approaching or that they expect will approach, anyone who finds such a vessel or cargo in a safe zone and takes possession of it shall not be allowed to keep all of the prize if he can find its owner. He shall, however, be properly rewarded according to the judgment of the local Elders at the location where he had brought in the vessel or the cargo, all circumstances and conditions mentioned above being taken into consideration.

If, on the other hand, the owner of the vessel or the cargo could not be found in proper time, the parties who had found this vessel or its cargo shall be given half of the total value as their reward; the other half of the salvage shall be disposed of in the manner explained and discussed in the article related to salvaged cargo. ⁽⁷⁾

If the enemy craft that had captured such a vessel or its cargo and abandoned it not by their own volition but because they were forced to do so by a storm or fear of other vessels, the matter shall be adjudicated. [218] in the same manner as in a case where the enemy vessel forced them to surrender such captured prize; everything shall be done without any attempt at deceit or fraud in such matters.

If it should happen that the enemy arrived at a place where they would offer the captured prize for sale, the party or parties who would purchase such a vessel or cargo shall be required to return the items purchased to the parties from whom it was stolen, provided that the latter demand the return of such property and provided that they shall agree to reimburse the buyers of such property for the amount they paid for such cargo and even the profit that could be made on it, if the buyers demand that.

If, on the other hand, the enemy who captured the vessel or the cargo should present it to someone as a gift, such a gift shall not and cannot be considered as proper. If, however, the enemy should offer it back to the owner from whom they had taken it away without demanding any ransom, such a gift shall be proper and must be considered proper; in such circumstances no one can oppose this.

If it should happen that the enemy inform the patron of the vessel that they had captured, "We are returning your vessel without any ransom, but we demand you pay a ransom for the cargo aboard it," such a gift shall not be considered proper if the enemy was not located in a place that can be considered safe enough for them, so that they feel certain that they cannot lose the booty until they reach a place of safety. They could of course burn or drop the cargo into the deep waters if they wanted to do this; however, a vessel or cargo that is burned is of no value to anyone and no one can profit from it, neither friends nor enemies, thus both sides lose it.

Whatever had been said above about the vessel shall also apply to the cargo.

If it should happen that merchants or their friends shall pay the enemy ransom for the cargo aboard their vessel, the patron and his friends will be required to share in the payment of the ransom in proportion to the quality and quantity of their cargo as well as the full value of the vessel, and this must be done without any dispute; the above rules as had been stated above shall apply equally to a vessel in its relation to the cargo as well as the cargo in its relation to the vessel.

Further, if the enemy locate such a captured vessel or its cargo in a safe place, that is, if they took the prize out of the waters of their enemies, this means waters in which help could come to the vessel that they had captured, and then they sell or give the vessel or the cargo to someone, such a sale or a gift shall be considered valid and it must be so considered without any dispute or by action of any court, [219] and no person can consider such action doubtful or suspicious. The person who had been so gifted by the enemy may make some concessions to those from whom the vessel was taken, if he so choose. However, no court or any other person can force him to do this, unless the party from whom the vessel or the cargo was taken can prove that deceit or fraud was used to accomplish this.

If fraud or deceit can be proved, such a gift cannot be adjudged legal or have any lasting effect; in fact, the deceit could have taken place under such circumstances that the party who accepted such a gift shall be jailed, and the court shall decree a judgment against his person and property, regardless of the deceiving method he adopted to accomplish this. If such a deceit is revealed, the vessel or the cargo shall be returned to the party from whom it was taken without any opposition whatsoever.

If it should happen that such enemies sell the captured vessel or its cargo, such a sale shall be considered valid and must be so considered, provided that the buyers will be able to prove that such a sale took place when the enemies were located in a safe territory, this is to say, that they had the vessel moored.

If it should happen that the buyers of such cargo would state that they bought the cargo under justifiable and proper circumstances, but will be unable to prove this, such a sale cannot be considered valid; and, if the patron of the vessel or the owner of the cargo that had been captured should appear and can prove that the vessel belongs to him, it will be necessary to return the vessel to him. Should any dispute develop over this matter, it shall be submitted to arbitration of the Elders or the courts in order to avoid any deceit. Should any deceit and fraud be proved, the party guilty of such conduct shall be required to repay the aggrieved party all the damages, costs, and losses suffered, while the party guilty of such deceit shall be turned over to justice.

Further, if a patron of a vessel or his representative regain the vessel or the cargo, regardless of the conditions under which he regained them, he shall be required to pay all the interested parties their share of the investment they had in the vessel or the cargo at the moment it was seized by the enemy, provided that they share in the cost expended in regaining these possessions, each of them in proportion to the value of his investment.

If the patron had been able to regain some of the cargo and had made an agreement to regain the vessel and the rest of the cargo and he had done this with the approval of the majority or all of the shareholders, in case it will become necessary he shall force them through legal channels to fulfill their part of the obligation in this matter. [220] Their promises in this matter are as obligatory and valid as when they make a promise to invest in purchasing a vessel or constructing a new vessel.

Further, if the patron made such an agreement without the approval of the majority or all of the shareholders, they shall not be obligated to any action that would be against their will. On his part the patron will not be obligated to acknowledge their share in the vessel and its contents that they had possessed when the vessel had been taken by the enemy, as long as he will make an accounting of the matter relating to the vessel and the cargo as of the moment before it was taken as a prize by the enemy.

Further, if these shareholders wish to ransom their holdings and the patron opposes this, he shall be ordered to proceed to ransom their holdings by a court order. The patron should not hesitate or refuse to accomplish this for any reason whatsoever as long as these shareholders agree to pay the full amount due for the ransom, proportionately to the amount of their investment. It would, therefore, not be proper and just that another party should have any more right and privilege to the property of a person than the owner of such property who wishes to make some disposition of that which belongs to him.

The above restrictions should be understood in this manner, that if a patron or some other person acting as his representative should ransom or repurchase the vessel or the cargo from the enemy or from other parties who may have acquired such property in a legal manner, and if the shareholders of such property would refuse to pay the expenses incurred, the patron or person who had acted as his representative in such a transaction should appeal several times to the shareholders to reconsider this matter. If they should absolutely refuse to pay for such expenses, the patron should if he so wishes sell such property with the permission of the court at a public auction to the highest bidder.

If it should happen that the investment the shareholders had in the vessel or the cargo shall exceed the cost of the ransom or repurchase, they shall reimburse the patron of the vessel for the difference in the amount, each of them in proportion to the amount of his investment.

The above should be taken to mean the following: that the patron is willing to proceed in this matter, for he cannot be either forced to do this, nor is he obligated to do this. The patron of the vessel, or the actual owner of such property, or the person who acted in his stead and ransomed or repurchased such property, has a prior claim to keep such goods at the price he paid for them, if the patron should not agree to sell such property at a public auction.

[221] If it should happen that the amount received for the vessel or cargo was insufficient to pay for the ransom or repurchase of either, the patron or his representative who ransomed or repurchased such property without the approval of the shareholders cannot force them to reimburse them for the difference, unless they willingly agree to do this. It is, therefore, just and proper that the patron or the party acting as his representative who had ransomed or repurchased such property should be able to have prior claim to keep such property and sell it to anyone who offers a bigger price for it, because he had taken a risk that he would have been required to assume the consequences of, had there been a loss in such a transaction. It should be remarked that if some of the shareholders would express a desire to retain possession of such property, they shall also be required to share in any possible losses in the amount proportionate to the amount of their investment.

Everything that has been stated above as well as all the reservations and circumstances enumerated shall be carried out in good faith. This refers to the situation when the enemy had accepted the ransom in a safe location and remained in such location while the deal was negotiated, and there was no attempt to deceit and fraud in all these negotiations.

291-A Cargo of Lumber

When a vessel takes aboard a load of lumber in order to deliver it to some destination, and there has been no agreement concluded between the master of the vessel and the merchants as to the amount that will be charged for transporting such a cargo, the patron may retain half of the cargo in lieu of the lading charges, and neither the legal authority nor the merchants nor anyone else can under any circumstance oppose this, because it had been so decided and it had been the custom to do this from the moment our ancestors began to sail throughout this world, and had decided and ordered that such a procedure be adopted and followed; therefore, all should act as had been decreed from time immemorial, and in no other manner.

However, if the merchants to whom the lumber belonged had informed the master before the vessel was cargoed that they wished to reach a decision on the amount of the lading charges, and the patron answered them that this will not be necessary because he will agree to accept any just amount they determine should be paid him, and the merchants relying on his assurance in this matter load their cargo aboard, they will not be required later on to give him half of the cargo in lieu of the lading fees, because they had cargoed the vessel under the condition indicated above and the patron cannot demand that [222] they allow him to keep half of the cargo because he had agreed to the conditions mentioned above. The merchants shall be required to pay him an adequate lading fee, equal in amount to the fee paid for such cargo at the place where it had been loaded aboard, or the amount that can be agreed upon with the patron.

If it should happen that the merchants cannot reach an agreement with the patron as to the amount that should be paid for his services, the matter shall be submitted to arbitration by the Elders, and whatever they decide shall be carried out. The above shall be interpreted to mean the following: that the merchants will be able to substantiate their claims by witnesses under oath or by a written document, that they had relied on the conditions and stipulations made by the patron in this matter. If they are unable to prove this, they shall be forced to give the patron half of their cargo of lumber in lieu of the lading feeds due him.

292-Contractual Validity

If an agreement had been concluded between specific parties fully conversant with the issues involved concerning any matter, and such an agreement was entered into in the proper location, ⁽⁸⁾ all parties concerned shall abide by its terms and carry them out completely. Therefore, any agreement concluded in a proper place between people fully aware of its terms and entered into for justifiable reason shall be carried out by all parties concerned.

If it should happen that one of the parties to the agreement should fail to fulfill its obligations, and the second party or parties to such an agreement should be damaged due to the unfulfillment of the agreement by the party of the first part, the latter shall be required to repay all such damages suffered without any opposition.

Further, excluded from this obligation shall be a situation in which the party that had failed to carry out such an agreement did this for justifiable and well established obstacles; if these impediments can be proved, that party who had failed to carry out the terms of the agreement shall not be liable for any damages suffered by the party of the second part, because of the impossibility of carrying out such an agreement. If, however, no such impediment could be proved, the guilty party shall pay the damages as mentioned above.

If, on the other hand, the party that had failed to carry out the terms of the agreement can prove that this happened due to the fault [223] or carelessness of the second party to the agreement, and if due to this the party of the first part would suffer any damages or losses, the party or parties who had been negligent in this matter shall pay for all the damages and losses and shall do this without any opposition.

Everything that has been stated above shall be executed without any deceit or fraud, provided that neither of the parties was prevented from the fulfillment of its obligations by some well established impediment.

For this reason the above article has been written.

293-Substitution or Falsification of the Bill of Lading

If a merchant sold some cargo to another, and the buyer did not see and did not wish to inspect such cargo, trusting the seller's description of the merchandise, who had informed him that he is selling him premium quality merchandise, and after being so reassured, the buyer purchased such merchandise, but later it is discovered that the cargo was not of the quality as represented and actually is of very poor quality or spoiled when it is unpacked at the site where it had been delivered, the seller shall be forced to pay the buyer the full amount such cargo would have been worth at the place where he had taken it to sell, had it been of the quality described by the seller.

In addition, if any buyer should suffer any damages, losses, and expenses by such misrepresentation of cargo, the seller shall be liable for any damages resulting, and must pay for them without any delay. In addition, if the buyer had suffered other losses due to the fact that he could not regain his money from such a misrepresentation and invest it in some other venture, the seller shall be forced to pay him the full amount, proportionately to the amount and value of such cargo, had he been able to sell it and invest the money he had received for it in order to make additional profit by trading in goods that were not misrepresented as to value and quality, and a deposition made by him under oath shall be accepted as prima facie evidence of the possibility of such an accomplishment. Everything that has been stated above shall be carried out without any attempt at deception or fraud.

Further, if, on the other hand, the seller informed the buyer that he is selling him the cargo as is, and stated: "Inspect this cargo, or order someone to inspect it, and either take it or leave it," and if the purchaser agreed to take the cargo, either after inspecting it or not inspecting it, the seller shall be free from any other responsibility or liability toward the buyer, regardless of the fact that the buyer may lose or profit on such a transaction, unless the seller would be willing to accept some liability in this matter for the transaction [224] took place in the manner and under the conditions described above. If it should become necessary, however, the conditions under which such a transaction was made shall be proved.

This article was written for the reasons stated above.

294-Charges of Misrepresentation Brought Against the Beneficiaries of the Patron by the Shareholders

If the patron of a vessel or the clerk acting in his name makes an accounting of all the profits and losses with the majority or all of the shareholders, or if such an accounting is made for some other reason, the party who prepared such a statement and the shareholders who had accepted it, whether all of them or a majority, and regardless of whether the patron of their vessel shall remain alive for a long or a short time, and shall reside in the same location as the shareholders, or shall continue to sail and shall return to the place of the residence of the majority or all of the shareholders after completing each journey or several journeys, or after giving them an accounting of his transactions shall proceed on a journey, and after a short or a long period of time while sailing, due to the will of God, shall die, when his vessel returns from the journey during which he died, the majority or all of the shareholders shall be able, if they claim that they found some mistakes or misrepresentations in the last statement given them, take action against the property or the beneficiaries of the patron or other persons who have control of his estate.

If the deceased had made an accounting to the shareholders and had left a last will in which he had indicated that he was aware of the mistake or misrepresentation in such an accounting, and would admit wronging the shareholders, such mistakes or misrepresentations shall be remedied without any hesitance and dispute, even if it was necessary to sell all the property left by the deceased, and neither the beneficiary nor anyone else can object to this, with the exception of the sailors, if they had not received their wages.

If it should happen that the deceased as had been mentioned above left a will but did not mention such a mistake, his beneficiaries shall not be obliged to pay the shareholders anything whatsoever, unless it can be proved that in the entries the patron had made in the register there had been mistakes or misrepresentations. It would have to be proved that such entries were made in the register by the deceased personally and not by another party. If the entries were made by the clerk, he shall be summoned, if he is alive, in order to ascertain if there actually had been any errors or misrepresentations made. No other records can be accepted as valid evidence in this matter.

If no such register could be found in which the deceased while still [225] alive had made entries regarding the accounting he had made to the shareholders, but the latter could produce a bona fide copy of such a register prepared by the same clerk, but not any other register, it would be immaterial whether such a clerk is alive or deceased, if on the basis of such a register it could be demonstrated and proved that mistakes or misrepresentations had been made, the estate of the deceased and his beneficiaries shall be liable to its full value for the amounts due to the shareholders caused by such error or misrepresentation.

If it should happen that the deceased after having made an accounting to the shareholders and while still alive had not prepared any last will, but there should be found a register or an authentic copy of it, as had been stated above, and on the basis of its contents corrections can be made, such corrections shall be made in the manner indicated above.

If he had not left a will and no register is found, there may arise serious disputes and troubles. In such situations the matters at issue shall be turned over to those who care for the welfare of the soul; an attempt shall be made to discover if the deceased had a confessor to whom he confessed his sins; ⁽⁹⁾ should such a confessor be found, the matter shall be given to him for arbitration, if, however, his confessor cannot be found, the matter shall be given for arbitration to people who live in love and fear of God, who are religious, trustworthy, and of high reputation. If such persons accept this matter for adjudication, they shall summon all the shareholders and administer an oath to each of them that they will testify truly about the erroneous entries in the accounts, explain what they based their reason for making such a statement, and also explain how such irregularities could have arisen; the Elders who will be arbitrating this issue must take in consideration the reputation and the status of the shareholders being examined.

Furthermore, they shall not accept the mere testimony of the shareholders; the latter shall be able to present creditable witnesses to substantiate their claims, and such witnesses shall be disinterested parties to the dispute and cannot profit or lose anything due to the outcome of such an issue, and this is proper, and justice demands that no one be allowed to offer testimony in a case that could in some manner benefit him or cause him damage, unless the parties to such a dispute agree to allow these persons to testify. Whatever the [226] Elders decide in such a case shall be carried out and no other action shall be allowed to be taken.

For these reasons this article has been written.

295-Removal of Equipment from a Vessel after It Had Been Cargoed

If a master of a vessel took aboard a cargo of some merchants at some designated location, and subsequently at the same location or some other location for whatever necessary reason will be forced to reduce the load of the cargo aboard as a safety measure for the vessel, and will also command that in order to further lighten the load, sails, anchors, or some other equipment be taken off the vessel, and this is done before the cargo is completely stored aboard, and due to this some damage or destruction takes place, if it can be proved that such damage or destruction happened due to the negligence of the patron, he shall be liable for and must pay the damage.

If the patron was without any means and was unable to pay the merchants for the damage suffered, it shall be proper, if he can be apprehended, to turn him over to the legal authorities, as would have been done in a case when the cargo had been specifically entrusted to his care, for every patron of a vessel must be treated and considered similarly to a party who had assumed control over all matters that occur in the relationship between the merchants and the owners of the vessel, of which we need not speak here.

This article was written for the reasons given above.

296-Lading Fees Assessed for Loss of Cargo Thrown Overboard

There are many opinions regarding the manner in which lading fees should share in the damages due to cargo being thrown overboard, one side arguing that all of the lading fees received shall be used for that purpose, the other side claiming that if the patron of the vessel had been paid lading fees for the cargo salvaged as well as for the cargo thrown overboard, he shall only share in the damage with the fees he had received for the cargo saved, and finally, still others maintain that if the patron had not taken charges for the cargo thrown overboard, he should not be forced to share for the loss of the cargo thrown overboard in any degree. Every merchant or any other person who has expressed such convictions has been fully convinced that his interpretation is proper and should be adhered to.

For these reasons our ancestors who first sailed throughout the world to many places and localities, having become aware of the diversity of opinions, had mutually agreed and determined the method that shall be used in order to satisfy all concerned, and to prevent [227] disputes and misunderstandings that could arise between the merchants and patrons, as well as other persons who may be the interested parties in such matters. With this objective in mind they unsparingly and with much effort and in order to reap the blessings of God and to gain the love and gratitude of the people, and in order to put an end to disputes and differences of opinion had declared and proclaimed what has been written and ordered in this article.

The full amount of the lading charges that the merchants or other persons had agreed to pay the patron shall be paid to him without any opposition, unless there were some agreements or special restrictions made between the patron of the vessel and the merchants or other persons, while the patrons of vessels shall share in the damages resulting from the cargo being thrown overboard to the full extent of the money they had been paid for carrying such cargo on a specific journey by the merchants or other persons.

Further, the above shall be taken to mean this, that the patrons of vessels shall be allowed to subtract from the full amount received in lading charges the wages of the crew, the cost of feeding the crew, and other legitimate expenses incurred during such a journey. Whatever is left over shall be accounted for by the patron or his representative acting together with the merchants or their representatives; if, however, the merchants are willing to accept the statement of accounts issued by the patron, they may do so.

In this manner, therefore, patrons of vessels are required to share in the damages due to the fact that cargo had to be thrown overboard in the net amount of the lading fees they had received from the merchants for the journey during which the cargo had to be thrown overboard, proportionally and in the same degree as the cargo saved shall share in the damages for the cargo lost.

If it should happen that some or all of the merchants demand that the patron share in the damages for the cargo thrown overboard on the return voyage, that is, with the lading fees he had received from the same or other merchants, for other cargo, or even the same cargo if he is taking it back, the patrons shall not be required to do this under any circumstances, because the damage due to the cargo being thrown overboard had already been adjusted in the previous voyage, and also because the cargo carried on the return voyage is neither the same cargo nor does it belong to the same merchants, and thus they are not obliged to share in any damage that had taken place on another voyage, and there is no logical reason why they should be forced or obligated in any manner. Thus, for the reasons listed above and many other reasons, a patron is not obligated under any circumstances to share in the damages resulting from cargo being thrown [228] overboard on one voyage to pay such damage from the lading fees he received for carrying cargo on a return voyage.

This article was written for the reasons listed, which in no way are contradictory to reasons listed in some of the previous articles. ⁽¹⁰⁾

297-When a Patron and His Crew Attempt to Withdraw from Proceeding on a Voyage

If a master had hired or shall hire a crew to serve aboard his vessel for a specific voyage, the crew must undertake and complete such a voyage, unless they can refuse to undertake such a voyage upon the conditions and circumstances already stated in one of the preceding articles, which had discussed this matter; everything stated above shall be carried out without any deceit or fraud. ⁽¹¹⁾

If it should happen that the patron of the vessel after hiring the crew aboard his vessel would wish to excuse himself from undertaking the journey, without justifiable reason, and actually because he wants to remain behind, and if the voyage for which he had hired the crew and leased the vessel had as its destination a dangerous and a suspicious area, the crew may if it wishes refuse to proceed on such a journey if the patron of the vessel had refused to undertake it, as stated above.

Further, if, however, the patron wished to remain behind for some well established and justifiable reasons, of which he had informed the members of the crew at the time they were being hired, he may remain behind. The crew, however, shall not be able to refuse to proceed on this journey, unless they have reasons that had been discussed in the article mentioned.

Further, if the patron wishes to remain behind and does remain behind for justifiable or not justifiable reasons, and the crew is willing to undertake the voyage and is ready to sail, the patron is required to provide a capable person to replace him aboard the vessel, who shall be required to fulfill all the obligations toward the crew as had been agreed at the time of the enlistment. Such a statement shall be read in the presence of the party who hired the crew as well as the crew itself and the person who is replacing the patron as master of this vessel. In this manner the sailors shall be obligated to obey the commands and carry out all the reasonable orders of the party who had been given command of the vessel, and who had replaced the patron, [229] in the same manner in which they had obligated themselves to serve the party with whom they had reached an agreement to serve aboard the vessel.

If it should happen that the party who had hired the sailors and who had been the patron of the vessel at that time, should say the following to the sailors: "I give command of my vessel to such and such a person and give him to you and make him a patron, that you will act toward him in the same manner as you had promised to act toward me, if I would undertake this voyage myself," at the moment these words are uttered and without renouncing his obligations to the sailors, but obligating the sailors to carry out all the agreements that had been concluded between them, the sailors shall thereafter carry out all provisions to which they had agreed and obligated themselves toward him, toward the person whom he had constituted as a patron of the vessel.

Further, should the sailors fail to carry out their obligations toward the party who had been appointed their patron, which they had promised they would do to the party who hired them, the latter may demand at will and at any time that they carry out these obligations and see to it that they are carried out.

If, however, the sailors fulfill and carry out all their responsibilities toward the party who had been appointed their patron, as they had agreed, and while they are aboard the vessel, the party constituted their patron shall conclude some agreement with them regarding the direction of the journey or some other matter, and this new agreement should become a cause of dispute between them, that is, between the party who had been appointed the patron and the sailors, he who had renounced his authority and entrusted it to the party who had negotiated a new agreement, the former cannot take any action against the sailors in his own name in reference to the newly made agreement and should not attempt to do this under any condition. The sailors shall not be accountable to him, and no person or judge can force them to do this for the reasons mentioned in this article.

Nevertheless, if the person who had been given command of the vessel surrendered it to the party who had given him the command, he may act upon the dispute but not in his own name, but in the name of the former master of the vessel, if he acts in the capacity, as had been mentioned above, the sailors shall be accountable to him, but they shall not be accountable under other circumstances.

Further, if the party who had accepted the vessel under his command had caused some damage to the vessel, in any manner whatsoever, the party that had given the latter party command may take action against him; we will not discuss or explain such a situation in [230] detail, as everyone knows very well what he should do and what he should not do in such circumstances.

This article was written and explained for the reason given above.

Thus far we have discussed laws and ordinances relating to sea and commerce; now we will present ordinances relating to laws and rights of armed naval units.

1. Reference is made to Articles 50 and 51.

2. Compare Articles 95, 99, and 195.

3. Reference is made to Article 109.

4. See Article 97, and compare Articles 98, 196, and 296.

5. Reference is made to Article 94.

6. Reference is made to Article 57.

7. Reference is made to Article 252, which in turn refers to Article 160.

8. Reference is made to Article 252, in which agreements are more fully discussed.

9. The "seal of confession" would have prevented a Roman Catholic priest from revealing any matter heard in the confession.

10. Reference is made to Articles 70 to 99, 111, 112, 131, 132, 187,.257, 284, and 295.

11. Reference is made to Article 156.