F.I.O.

F.I.O.

F.I.O., F.I.L.O., F.I.O.S., F.I.O.S.T. in Maritime Law

Note: There is more information on maritime/admiralty law here.

The following is a definition of F.I.O., F.I.L.O., F.I.O.S., F.I.O.S.T., produced by Tetley, in the context of admiralty law: Terms of a charterparty which oblige the charterer, rather than the shipowner (or disponent owner), to pay for certain cargo handling operations. F.I.O. (“free in and out”) means that the charterer controls and pays for loading and discharge of the cargo (which is therefore “free” of charge to the shipowner). F.I.L.O. (“free in, liner out”) means that the charterer controls and pays for the loading of the cargo, and the shipowner pays for discharge (the discharge being on liner terms. F.I.O.S. (“free in and out stowed”) means that the charterer controls and pays for loading, discharge and stowage of the cargo. F.I.O.S.T. means that the charterer controls and pays for loading, discharge, stowage and trimming of the cargo.

While these terms are unquestionably valid in chartering, their validity in bills of lading under the Hague Rules and the Hague/Visby Rules remains controversial. In the United Kingdom, it has been held that the shipper and the carrier are free to allocate as between themselves the responsibility for these cargo handling operations. See Pyrene & Co. Ltd. v. Scindia Steam Navigation Co., Ltd. [1954] 2 Q.B. 402 at pp. 417-418, [1954] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 321 at pp. 328-329; G.H. Renton & Co. Ltd. v. Palmyra Trading Corp. of Panama [1957] A.C. 149 at pp. 169-170 and 174, [1956] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 379 at pp. 390-391 and 393 (H.L.); and The Jordan II [2005] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 57, 2005 AMC 913 (H.L.). In the United States, there is a division of opinion. Some courts have agreed with the British position. See, for example, Atlas Assurance Co. v. Harper, Robinson Shipping Co. 508 F.2d 1381 at pp. 1389-1390, 1975 AMC 2358 at p. 2369 (9 Cir. 1975) (re the “F.I.O.” term); Sumimoto Corp. of America v. M/V Sie Kim 632 F. Supp. 824 at pp. 834 and 836-837, 1987 AMC 160 at pp. 170 and 174-175 (S.D. N.Y. 1985) (re the “F.I.L.O.” term); and Sigri Carbon Corp. v. Lykes Bros. Steamship Co. 655 F. Supp. 1435 at p. 1438, 1988 AMC 1787 at p. 1791 (W.D. Ky. 1987) (re the “F.I.O.” term). On the other hand, the Second and Ninth Circuits have taken the position that such terms in are invalid under sect. 3(8) of COGSA (46 U.S. Code Appx. 1303(8)), because the duties of the carrier under COGSA are “non-delegable” and because such terms in a bill of lading, in effect, “relieve or lessen” the liability of the carrier for cargo loss or damage otherwise than as permitted by the statute. See Associated Metals and Minerals v. The Arktis Sky 978 F.2d 47 at p. 50, 1993 AMC 509 at p. 513 (2 Cir. 1992) (re the “F.I.O.S.” term) and Tubacex, Inc. v. M/V Risan 45 F.3d 951 at p. 956, 1995 AMC 1305 at p. 1310 (5 Cir. 1995).

See also FO, (see this legal term in this law dictionary) and liner terms (see this maritime law term in this legal dictionary).

F.I.O. in Admiralty Law

For information on f.i.o. in this context, see the entry on f.i.o. in the maritime law encyclopedia.


Posted

in

by

Comments

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *