Triton Marine Fuels Ltd. v. M/V Pacific Chukotka

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• concluding that in an in rem maritime lien action, the choice-of-law clause in the underlying contract was enforceable
• “concludefing] ERL had the authority to bind the Vessel to the provisions of the Bunker Confirmation.... ”
• rejecting the owner’s argument that it should not be bound by the choice-of-law provision in the bunker confirmation because the owner was not a party to the supply contract
• explaining that, “[p]rior to 1910, a maritime lien arose under United States law when necessaries were provided to a vessel in a port of a foreign country or state, but no such lien arose ... in a port of the vessel’s home state, unless a lien was authorized by local state law”
• “[M]aritime liens are stricti juris and cannot be created by agreement between the parties; instead, they arise by operation of law.” (citation omitted)
• \It is a fundamental tenet of maritime law that '[c]harterers and their agents are presumed to have authority to bind the vessel by the ordering of necessaries.' \

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).