Gulf Trading & Transportation Co. v. The vessel Hoegh Shield - [1982] A.M.C. 1138

United States: choice of law - Effect of maritime lien

The time charterers (Multinational Gas & Petrochemical Co.) of the Norwegian vessel Hoegh Shield requested the London office of Gulf Oil Corporation to arange for the delivery of bunkers to the vessel at Cristobal, Canal Zone. The bunkers were duly delivered and an invoice sent to Multinational in London. The invoice was never paid. In deciding whether English or American law applied (there being no express choice of law clause), the Court of Appeals held that the critical factor was their determination that a maritime lien on the vessel existed in favour of Gulf. The congressional intent behind the U.S. Maritime Lien Statute was that an American supplier of goods, services or necessaries to a foreign vessel obtained a maritime lien on the vessel when the goods or services were supplied or performed in the United States. In the maritime realm it was expected that when necessaries were furnished to a vessel in an American port by an American supplier, the American Maritime Lien Statute would apply to protect that supplier regardless of the place where the contract was formed or the nationality of the vessel.