"...... the shipowners' undertaking to tender a seaworthy ship, has as a result of numerous decisions as to what can amount to 'unseaworthiness', become one of the most complex of contractual undertakings. It embraces obligations with respect to every part of the hull and machinery, stores and equipment and the crew itself. It can be broken by the presence of trivial defects easily and rapidly remedial, as well as by defects which must inevitably result in a total loss of the vessel." per Diplock LJ in The Hong Kong Fir Shipping case [1962] 2 QB 26 (CA).
             In the Hong Kong Fir Shipping Co.,Ltd v. Kawasaki Kisen Kaisha Ltd case the principals were indeed fundamental. The plaintiffs (owners) had chartered the Hong Kong Fir to the defendants (charterers) for twenty-four months from delivery to the charterers in Liverpool. The vessel was delivered in Liverpool on February 13th 1957. The vessel then started it voyage to America to get a cargo of coal. It then left for Osaka and was delayed by five weeks due to the repairs needed on the engine. On arrival to Osaka the vessel was found to need more repairs due to the vessel being in very bad condition, and was worked on for fifteen more weeks, to make the vessel seaworthy. by the time the vessel was rendered 'seaworthy' it was September 15 but on the 6th of June and on the 11th of September the Charterers had written to the owners(plaintiffs) repudiating the Charter.
             It is on the date of delivery of the vessel to the docks in Liverpool when the court found the vessel to be 'unseaworthy' as the engine room staff were found to be incompetent and inadequate in number in view of the age of the vessels machinery.
             In this case the defendants had chartered the ship from the plaintiffs. It was a term of contract that the ship was seaworthy. In fact the ship was unseaworthy, owing to the combination of an aging engine and an less than adequat...