Примеры использования Non-liner на Английском языке и их переводы на Русский язык
{-}
-
Official
-
Colloquial
Arbitration agreement in non-liner transportation.
Non-liner transportation" means any transportation that is not liner transportation.
Draft article 1,paragraph 4"non-liner transportation.
In this context, it was suggested that, as a matter of drafting, the reliance on FIO(S)clauses could be restricted to the non-liner trade.
The Chairperson noted that the definitions of"liner transportation" and"non-liner transportation" contained in draft article 1, paragraphs 3 and 4, were relevant to the content of draft article 6.
Shipment by regular liner vessels and non-liner vessels.
A suggestion was made that paragraph 2 could be limited to non-liner transportation as, in liner trade, the carrier typically performed the listed obligations itself in respect of the containers.
Draft article 78 Arbitration agreement in non-liner transportation.
In the event that a non-liner ship(irregular ship) cannot be processed in the period between the processing of liners, all necessary hauling work and redocking must be co-ordinated and paid for by the Applicant.
Furthermore, paragraph 2 should not be restricted to non-liner trade.
Although the French proposal to restrict the application of paragraph 2 to non-liner trade was interesting. FIO(S) clauses were also used in the liner trade, particularly for the carriage of large machinery or other special equipment.
We arrange transportations with both liner and non-liner(tramp) vessels.
As for paragraph 2, while the Working Group had not considered non-liner trade in its discussion of the paragraph, a shipper wishing to enter into a contract with a carrier in order to take over some of the latter's standard duties should not be prevented from doing so.
Draft article 6(Specific exclusions) anddefinitions of"liner transportation" and"non-liner transportation.
It was noted that FIO(S)clauses were most commonly used in non-liner carriage, which fell outside the scope of application of the draft convention, but that the draft convention could be applicable to contracts of carriage in non-liner transport by way of the operation of draft article 10.
This Convention does not apply to contracts of carriage in non-liner transportation except when.
In addition, questions were raised regarding how an individual shipment would be classified if it were made pursuant to a contract of carriage in which the carrier agreed to use a liner service, butinstead used a non-liner service.
A concern was expressedthat allowing for FIO(S) clauses in the draft convention would lead to their spread from the non-liner to the liner trade, and increase the potential for their abuse, but it was suggested that commercial realities made this unlikely.
His delegation favoured the retention of draft article 14, paragraph 2, in its current wording, with no distinction between liner and non-liner trade.
It was noted that FIO(S)clauses were most commonly used in non-liner carriage, which fell outside the scope of application of the draft convention, but that the draft convention could be applicable to contracts of carriage in non-liner transport by way of the operation of draft articles 6, paragraph 2, and 7.
Zinc oxide varistor is a semiconductor manufacturing as the main raw materials, ceramic components,the resistances changes with the applied voltage was non-liner change.
It was further indicated that the proposed draft of article 4 applied to contracts in non-liner trade exempted from the scope of application of the draft instrument, and that in practice in this trade a receipt would rarely be issued, and then most often in cases where the shipper and the consignee were legally or economically the same entity.
Ms. Eriksson(Observer for Finland) expressed support for maintaining draft article 14 as currently formulated, including paragraph 2,which reflected a commercial practice in both non-liner and liner trade.
It was observed that this approach would preserve the existing practice in non-liner trade where recourse to arbitration under charter parties and charter party bills of lading was not uncommon, ensure uniformity of rules, and favour freedom of contract while preventing possible circumvention of jurisdiction rules under the draft instrument.
Other concerns were raised that the operation of draft paragraphs 11(6) and 14(2) could limit the parties' current freedomof contract regarding FIO(S) clauses in the non-liner trade, particularly with respect to the allocation of risk.
Without prejudice to subparagraphs 1(a)and(b), this Instrument applies to contracts of carriage in non-liner transportation when evidenced by or contained in a transport document or an electronic transport record that also evidences the carrier's or a performing party's receipt of the goods, except as between the parties to a charter party or to a contract for the use of a ship or of any space thereon.
A suggestion was also made that the bracketed text"[a jurisdiction or]" should be deleted in its entirety from draft article 81 bis,since jurisdiction clauses were not common in the non-liner industry, and the intention of the proposal was to preserve the status quo.
It was recalled that the Working Group had previously agreed that the coverage under the new convention should be at least as broad as what was already covered under the Hague and Hague-Visby Rules,which also applied to contracts of carriage under bills of lading in non-liner transportation.
Finally, it was explained that the intention of the compromise was to preserve the status quo with respect to the use of arbitration in the maritime transport industry by providing minimal arbitration rules with respect to the liner industry, butproviding for freedom of arbitration in the non-liner industry through the addition of draft article 81 bis see A/CN.9/WG. III/WP.54, para. 5 e.
The Working Group was reminded that the goal of the draft provisions was to reflect the needs of practitioners with respect to the use of arbitration in the maritime transport industry by providing limited freedom of arbitration with respect to the liner industry, where arbitration was not frequent,while allowing broad freedom of arbitration in the non-liner industry, where arbitration was, on the contrary, the standard method of dispute resolution.