The standard English textbook, Time Charters, by Wilford, et al., was first
published as a monograph by Michael Wilford in 1978, and it was structured as an
extensively annotated version of the 1946 version of the NYPE form, with occasional comparisons to the Baltime form. The third edition of the book, in 1989, was
the first to be published after a revised version of the NYPE form had been issued,
but the book still clung to the 1946 version of the form; the new “ASBATime 1981”
was reproduced as Appendix E, but the text contained almost no commentary on the
changes that the new form had wrought to the apparently canonical 1946 text.
31 The
most recent edition, the seventh, published in 2014, continues to treat the 1946
version of the form as the core text around which the book is organized.
32 Obviously,
that edition was published before BIMCO, ASBA and SMF published NYPE 2015,
but it still contains very few references to the text of either the 1981 or the 1993
versions of the form, and for good reason—there are very few cases about anything
other than the 1946 version of the form.
The 1946 version of NYPE was not newly drafted after World War II. It was
merely an amendment of the 1913 form, many clauses of which simply adopted
word for word the language that had been used in nineteenth century American
charter contracts.
33 To take just one example, it is now difficult to determine when
the time-honoured words “tight, staunch, strong” first appeared in a charterparty
contract, but they appear to date back at least to the early nineteenth century, and
probably earlier. The earliest case in the English Reports featuring the phrase dates
from 1809, when a charterer complained that the shipowner had failed to provide a
ship “tight, staunch, and strong, and well and sufficiently equipped, manned, &c. for
a voyage or voyages of 12 calendar months”.
34 The phrase obviously migrated to the
United States during the course of the nineteenth century, because the first American
case in which it appears is a decision of the U.S. District Court for the District of
South Carolina in 1889, holding that a shipowner had not breached its obligation
under a voyage charter to provide a ship “in every respect tight, staunch, strong,
classed 100A1, and in every respect fitted for the voyage across the Atlantic.”
35 The
familiar phrase “tight, staunch, strong” was one of many standard expressions
incorporated into the New York Produce Exchange form in 1913, and it remained
there for over a hundred years until the most recent version of the form, NYPE 2015,
finally replaced it with the rather less colorful, but rather more plainly descriptive
phrase, “seaworthy and in every way fit to be employed for the intended service”.
36
The phrase is more than 200 years old, at a conservative estimate.
It might be objected that there is no real harm in owners and charterers continuing
to use the phrase “tight, staunch, strong” in their charterparties, rather than
31 Wilford et al. (1989).
32 Wilford et al. (2014).
33 Healy (1983).
34 Havelock v. Geddes (1809) 10 East. 555; 103 E.R. 886.
35 Card v. Hine, 39 F. 818 (D.S.C. 1889).
36 NYPE 2015, cl. 2(b), line 39.
When Was the Last Time You Were Restrained by a Prince? Conservatism. . .
159
published as a monograph by Michael Wilford in 1978, and it was structured as an
extensively annotated version of the 1946 version of the NYPE form, with occasional comparisons to the Baltime form. The third edition of the book, in 1989, was
the first to be published after a revised version of the NYPE form had been issued,
but the book still clung to the 1946 version of the form; the new “ASBATime 1981”
was reproduced as Appendix E, but the text contained almost no commentary on the
changes that the new form had wrought to the apparently canonical 1946 text.
31 The
most recent edition, the seventh, published in 2014, continues to treat the 1946
version of the form as the core text around which the book is organized.
32 Obviously,
that edition was published before BIMCO, ASBA and SMF published NYPE 2015,
but it still contains very few references to the text of either the 1981 or the 1993
versions of the form, and for good reason—there are very few cases about anything
other than the 1946 version of the form.
The 1946 version of NYPE was not newly drafted after World War II. It was
merely an amendment of the 1913 form, many clauses of which simply adopted
word for word the language that had been used in nineteenth century American
charter contracts.
33 To take just one example, it is now difficult to determine when
the time-honoured words “tight, staunch, strong” first appeared in a charterparty
contract, but they appear to date back at least to the early nineteenth century, and
probably earlier. The earliest case in the English Reports featuring the phrase dates
from 1809, when a charterer complained that the shipowner had failed to provide a
ship “tight, staunch, and strong, and well and sufficiently equipped, manned, &c. for
a voyage or voyages of 12 calendar months”.
34 The phrase obviously migrated to the
United States during the course of the nineteenth century, because the first American
case in which it appears is a decision of the U.S. District Court for the District of
South Carolina in 1889, holding that a shipowner had not breached its obligation
under a voyage charter to provide a ship “in every respect tight, staunch, strong,
classed 100A1, and in every respect fitted for the voyage across the Atlantic.”
35 The
familiar phrase “tight, staunch, strong” was one of many standard expressions
incorporated into the New York Produce Exchange form in 1913, and it remained
there for over a hundred years until the most recent version of the form, NYPE 2015,
finally replaced it with the rather less colorful, but rather more plainly descriptive
phrase, “seaworthy and in every way fit to be employed for the intended service”.
36
The phrase is more than 200 years old, at a conservative estimate.
It might be objected that there is no real harm in owners and charterers continuing
to use the phrase “tight, staunch, strong” in their charterparties, rather than
31 Wilford et al. (1989).
32 Wilford et al. (2014).
33 Healy (1983).
34 Havelock v. Geddes (1809) 10 East. 555; 103 E.R. 886.
35 Card v. Hine, 39 F. 818 (D.S.C. 1889).
36 NYPE 2015, cl. 2(b), line 39.
When Was the Last Time You Were Restrained by a Prince? Conservatism. . .
159