1. 合约约定外国法为适用法，这不涉及法律观点的上诉。
如约定：HK arbitration， English Law，香港跟随英国法，是否可以就法律观点上诉到香港法院？像时效限制，外国适用法和货币皆为实体法，但最后上诉到英国枢密院又如何？
像Lesotho Highlands Development Authority v. Impregilo SpA 案例中，货币判错，但贵族院拒绝发回重申，认为是程序错误行使权力。此案若是在法院这样判是否可以有的救济？
怎样避免这种情况的发生？
3.此事本人的经历。
在New Orleans从驳船上装豆粕到委内瑞拉卸。因经常下雨，时而急雨，时而零星小雨，船舶货仓不能在大雨时立即关舱，驳船上的货也不能很快的盖上帆布和塑料天蓬怀疑有货湿，而产生的纠纷。
关舱时，货舱上的帆布上的积水和舱盖上的水不可避免的流入舱内，导致部分水湿。船上要求岸上人员清理掉一部分了，但是豆粕是吸水的，没有明显水湿的货物没有被清理掉。船长递交了LOP。P&I也出了报告，写的更为严重。导致船东担心在卸货港会有货损，要求在Mate’s Receipt上签注水湿‘cargo loaded in partially wet condition’，否则等待进一步的谈判处理，但是，在岸上货主代表呈上的Mate’s Receipt上，货主拒绝船长在其上签注任何批注。
由于船长的疏忽，未能看清大副收据而忘了作出批注。船长要求收回已经签发的大副收据，但货主拒绝配合。船长通知船东此事的原由，为了避免船舶延期，船长开船驶往卸货港。
最后船东出具了清洁提单。所幸只有5天路程，后来货物也没有任何发霉变质现象，双方虚惊一场。
The“Nogar Marin”（1988） 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 412先例，船长明知货损而签发清洁大副收据，而导致代理签发了清洁提单，Mustill判决：这疏忽打断了因果链，导致船东要求补偿未成功。
The David Agmashenebeli [2003] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 92装载化肥，船长吹毛求疵，过火要求批注提单，导致违约索赔，Colman法官判船东败诉。Colman J. declined to follow the dicta in The Arctic Trader suggesting that Article III rule 3 imposed on the carrier any absolute duty to state accurately the apparent good order and condition.正好与The Arctic Trader相反。
The Phassa-SMA No.2650纽约仲裁/《期租合约》26.3.1.3，
《Time Charters 6ED》21.125 In The Phassa, SMA 2650 (Arb. at N.Y. 1990), the panel held that the owner’s refusal to issue clean bills of lading based upon suspected shoreside measurement was proper since there was ample reason for the owner to conclude that such measurements did not accurately reflect the quantity of crude oil which was loaded on the vessel.
Scrutton-20版A61侵权性误述
3.83 In The Boukadoura 154 the charter in question was a voyage charter incorporating the Hague Rules and requiring the master to sign bills of lading as presented. The vessel loaded a cargo of fuel oil, but the ship's figures for the quantity loaded differed from the shore figures and the master refused to sign the bill of lading presented based on shore figures. A delay ensued which caused the charterers' loss, which they sought to recover as damages for breach of the charter. Evans J. found as a fact that the shore figures were inaccurate, and rejected the claim. He also concluded that the master had acted reasonably throughout, including his actions in offering to sign the bill of lading if it could be endorsed with ship's figures and in engaging independent surveyors to check quantities. 155 It appears that this analysis was undertaken in the context of the carrier's obligations under Article III rule 3.
在The Boukadoura案-154，相关租约是程租，并入海牙规则，要求签发呈上的提单。船舶装载原油，但装载货量的船方数据不同于岸上数据，船长拒绝签发以岸上为准的呈上的提单。接着发生延迟，造成租家损失，企图要求补偿违反租约的损失。Evans法官认定：事实上，岸上数据是不准确的，拒绝了索赔。他也得出：船长整个行为合理，包括他提出建议去签发批注提单的行为，如果能在提单上批注船方数据和雇佣独立的检验员核实货量-155。看来，采用的这种分析是依照承运人在规则第3条第3款下的责任背景。
3.85 In The Arctic Trader 157 the vessel was time chartered under an NYPE charter, incorporating the Hague-Visby Rules, which provided for the master to sign bills of lading as presented in accordance with the mate's receipts. He carelessly issued clean mate's receipts in respect of a cargo of salt which he should have noticed was contaminated. Subsequently the owners' agents signed clean bills of lading in conformity with the mate's receipts. The court held that whilst the master owed a duty to his employer (and possibly to third parties who might rely on the bills of lading issued in conformity with the mate's receipts) he owed no duty to the charterers to exercise care and skill in relation to the clausing of mate's receipts. It is, however, recorded as common ground that “the master or chief officer must exercise the judgment of a responsible and reasonable ship's officer, but beyond this no expertise is required of him”.158 Again it is not clear from the context whether this is a reflection of a duty owed in contract or tort or to whom this duty is owed. The court further considered, obiter, that the duty under Article III rule 3 of the Hague-Visby Rules was “an unqualified or ‘absolute’ contractual undertaking, not merely one which the shipowner, or the master, must take reasonable care to perform.”159
